Why do you say that America’s political system is degenerating into crony capitalism?
There is not a well-understood distinction between being pro-business
and being pro-market. Businessmen like free markets until they get into a
market; once they are in it they want to block entry to others.
Pro-marketeers want free markets at all times. The more conservative
pro-marketeers are fearful of criticizing business, because they assume
they will be seen as criticizing the free market. But we need to stand
up and criticize business when business is not helping the cause of free
markets.
In what way?
Take lobbying. Lobbying may once have been reactive but now it’s proactive—businessmen use it to shape policy and ask for tax advantages. This is corruptive of democracy.
Examples, please.
Companies with a lot of money abroad sponsored a bill in 2004-2005 that allowed them to repatriate their profits at a low tax rate. Thus $1 produced $220 of tax savings. The Bush-approved drug and Medicare act was a huge bonanza for the drug industry. Their market value increased by several billion dollars when this was announced. I could continue.
In what way?
Take lobbying. Lobbying may once have been reactive but now it’s proactive—businessmen use it to shape policy and ask for tax advantages. This is corruptive of democracy.
Examples, please.
Companies with a lot of money abroad sponsored a bill in 2004-2005 that allowed them to repatriate their profits at a low tax rate. Thus $1 produced $220 of tax savings. The Bush-approved drug and Medicare act was a huge bonanza for the drug industry. Their market value increased by several billion dollars when this was announced. I could continue.
~Luigi Zingales, professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business being interviewed in The Economist
This is an excellent point and the awful part is that businesses who successfully lobby for their interests at the expense of consumers and innovators are the real parasites in the economy.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not sure I've seen many (any?) good examples of pure marketeers -
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNFIB - Small Business Optimism August 2012 Survey
ReplyDeleteSmall-Business Optimism Continues to Decline in July
Little Hope for Recovery Before November
Summary
"The Optimism Index gave up 0.2 points, falling to 91.2.
Owner optimism remains at recession levels and has stayed in a recession zone for years, oscillating between 86.5 (in July 2009) and 94.5 (February 2012) since the recession officially ended in June 2009.
Prior to 2008, the Index averaged 100, significantly above the current reading.
The Index has averaged 90 in this recovery, now three years old and is the worst recovery period from a recession in the NFIB survey history which began in 1973.
Nothing happened in July that would make owners more optimistic about the near term future."
How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?
ReplyDeleteSmall firms (fewer than 500 employees):
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers (scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.
Both are anti-worker, anti-US(in the last 30-40 years), and both result in less freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe confluence of both - to the detriment of all - can be seen in th South, where there is no development - there is only theft from Northern states. In addition, their willingness to sell out country and treat workers like subjects of a kingdom is proof that they hate freedom.
ReplyDeleteHow important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?
As life-sustaining as living in a failed nuclear reactor like Fukushima. In addition, small businesses are as unstable - for they are very hostile to workers and very unstable about their arrangments.
The better thing is for larger firms that hire directly within the US, deal with their workers honestly, dont hide behind complaints of skill, and put the US above other countries. A stable business isnt going to be small; trying to make everyone a contract whore does more harm than good.
This is an argument for limited government that has no power to grant special favours to any interest group.
ReplyDeleteFree market is not as important as fair market.
ReplyDeleteHow do you decide what is fair?
Open a market in fairness.
If governemtne simply openly auctioned off fairness, we would soon establish a price.
That price would establish what regulations could be set.
Heresy, I know.
Go ahead and pile on.
How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?
ReplyDeleteSmall firms (fewer than 500 employees):
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers (scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.
==============================
This is complete and utter bullshit.
The vast majority of American workers are employed by only 33,000 large firms.
Sure,they are large in nmber of firms, but small in number of employees, and large in number of layoffs.
Small businesses, as it turns out, are prety darn large.
We are not talking small businesses like mine, with three employees.
If 52% are home based, where the Eff do all the commuters come from?
This is completely outrageous and totally unfactual. It does NOTHING to clarify the facts on the ground.
I this was even close to the case, anyone out of work would start their own home base business (probably in violation of zoning law and HOA cvenants).
can be seen in th South, where there is no development - there is only theft from Northern states. In addition, their willingness to sell out country and treat workers like subjects of a kingdom is proof that they hate freedom.
ReplyDelete==================================
Seth storm is going to take a beating on this, despite the fact that he is essentially correct.
Nice post.
ReplyDeleteBut this Chicago prof obviously just scratched the surface.
What about state liquor licenses? State licensing of lawyers?
$1 trillion a year for Defense-Homeland Security-VA---you think some lobbying going on there?
Ethanol anyone?
Cut federal agency spending in half, and insert into the Constitution the right to push-cart vending of goods and services.
"This is complete and utter bullshit."
ReplyDeleteWell then, I'm sure you have some credible information to counter with. Did you forget to cite it?
Without a reference it's easy to believe you have once again pulled something directly from your ass.
"Heresy, I know."
ReplyDeleteHeresy? No, just more of the weird nonsense you post so much of.
I think the fundamental misunderstanding of free markets revolves around property rights.
ReplyDeleteIn a free market, property (whether it be land, labor, resources, etc) can be traded among two (or more) individuals. These trades will not occur unless all parties involved benefit. The fact that a third party not involved in the transaction views the trade as unfair is irrelevant. The mere fact that the trade occurred demonstrates that both sides benefited from such a trade.
Pro-business is an institution where the laws and rules are geared towards giving business (or the producer) advantages over the consumer. Minimum-wage laws, tariffs, anti-scalping laws, and licensing are all different pro-business policies (albeit some are more subtle than others).
In a free market, a trade will only occur between two parties if both sides benefit and both sides agree. Therefore, a free market is inherently fair.
I am going to repeat this a few times as this is something that is a stumbling point.
In a free market, a trade will only occur between two parties if both sides benefit and both sides agree. Therefore, a free market is inherently fair.
In a free market, a trade will only occur between two parties if both sides benefit and both sides agree. Therefore, a free market is inherently fair.
In a free market, a trade will only occur between two parties if both sides benefit and both sides agree. Therefore, a free market is inherently fair.
In a free market, a trade will only occur between two parties if both sides benefit and both sides agree. Therefore, a free market is inherently fair.
One more time for good measure.
In a free market, a trade will only occur between two parties if both sides benefit and both sides agree. Therefore, a free market is inherently fair.
So called "fair trade practices" are inherently unfair. They reward large corporations at the expense of small companies and workers.
If you want to reduce the power and influence of large corporations, then don;t protect them. Let them face competition.
If you want to reduce the power and influence of large corporations, then don;t protect them. Let them face competition
ReplyDeletethere is a paradox though and that is money essentially buys access, influence and ultimately favored status
... AND.... govt agencies created to define monopolistic practices and enforce anti-trust actions are often viewed by free-market types as wrongheaded govt intrusion.
it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.
seems like you either got to have "referees" or the natural inclination of a truly free market is to set up and maintain barriers to competition.
take a look at Apple - which basically is using govt policies to neuter competition and innovation.
others would say that Apple is merely enlisting the govt to protect it's property rights.
So is Apple engaging in pro-market or anti-market practices?
Larry,
ReplyDeleteYou are right that the natural inclination of participants of any market (whether it be free or whatever) is to put up barriers to entry. No one wants to face competition. However, in a free market, those barriers cannot be effectively enforced.
Barriers of entry can only be enforced through the government or some other law-enforcing body. As the influence of the entity grows in the marketplace, participants will try to gain more influence in the entity. They will then seek to stifle all forms of competition through the regulatory agency or become involved in the agency itself (regulatory capture).
There has yet to be an anti-trust law that works as well at reducing monopolies and corporate influence as the free market.
Expanding the power of government in the marketplace will not reduce the amount of influence businesses and monopolies have. In fact, it will enhance it.
The only sure way to keep economic power in check is through competition. Do not seek to protect them from foreign competition. Do not seek to protect them from competition in other states. Do not seek to protect them from competition within the industry. Rather, foster that competition by staying out of the fray. Let businesses stand on their two legs. Let them rise and fall based on their own merit, rather than their political connections.
We always say we want an economic and political system that rewards merit rather than insiders. Well, a free market does just that. Let it work.
there is a paradox though and that is money essentially buys access, influence and ultimately favored status
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly why government shouldn't have the regulatory power it has. You can't buy influence from a government that doesn't have it.
Oh, sorry, I forgot to answer your question about Apple v. Samsung.
ReplyDeleteI could spend hours on this, but I'll just sum it up here as short as I can:
Apple and Samsung are blatantly abusing the patent system here in the US. This really demonstrates the need for patent reform in America.
By the way, re-reading my post, Larry, I think I came off a little preachy. I apologize for that and I hope you don't think I am talking down to you.
ReplyDeletenaw ...you weren't "preachy",just emphatic
ReplyDeletere: govt and competition
it looks to me that without a govt, any business will use any/all methods to squash competition.
Standard Oil was very successful at killing off competition - both horizontal and vertical.
It's true that companies can and do co-opt govt to help squash competition but it seems they would have even more unrestricted power without govt.
anyone got any GOOD examples of Pro-Market companies or industries (or govt laws/regs?)?
anyone got any GOOD examples of Pro-Market companies or industries (or govt laws/regs?)?
ReplyDeleteNAFTA, I think. Removing much of the barriers to trade (such as tariffs), creating a uniform system of classification (NAICS) that allows for simple comparisons, and it reduces the transaction costs of doing business with our two major trading partners.
I realize there is controversy around this, but Right to Work legislation is probably another example. It fights unfair labor practices, such as requiring someone to join a union or any other organization (or pay dues to the organization) as a requirement of employment.
ReplyDeleteI think WalMart is a good example. They seem ready, willing and able to compete in any market without seeking govt "protection" of their interests but it's possible there is a bigger picture than I do not see.
ReplyDeleteHm, true on Wal-Mart. Although they do often support minimum wage legislation, which gives them a step up on local competitors.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be hard to find someone outside of academia who is 100% free-market. Self-interest does set in.
Free market is not as important as fair market.
ReplyDeleteIn a free market transactions are made because both sides prefer to make the transaction to staying as they are . Since both sides get what they want the outcome is fair.
How do you decide what is fair?
I don't. The consumer and seller decide by going ahead with the transactions.
Open a market in fairness.
That is a market without coercion where consumers and sellers are free to make decisions without coercion.
If governemtne simply openly auctioned off fairness, we would soon establish a price.
In a free market the price is established by consumers and sellers. Since they know better than government bureaucrats it is better for all involved other than the parasites in government who would tell others what to do.
That price would establish what regulations could be set.
Your logic is terrible. I wonder if you are simply stupid or your ideology just gets in the way.
Without a reference it's easy to believe you have once again pulled something directly from your ass.
ReplyDeleteGiven his previous posting history there seems to be a lot of crap and room in there.
there is a paradox though and that is money essentially buys access, influence and ultimately favored status
ReplyDelete... AND.... govt agencies created to define monopolistic practices and enforce anti-trust actions are often viewed by free-market types as wrongheaded govt intrusion.
The solution is easy but fools like you are against it. If we remove the power of government to meddle in voluntary transactions businesses cannot get government to provide them with special privileges. But every time there is a crisis both the anti-business left and the pro-business right keep insisting that government step in and bail out the people that made the bad decisions.
The way I see it both sides are hypocrites. The left argues for more power yet complains that the power is used in ways that it does not like. The right claims to argue for free markets yet supports policy decisions that hamper markets in favour of corporations. The left screws taxpayers. The right screws consumers. Both destroy the free market in favour of a mercantilist system that resembles National Socialism.
Apple and Samsung are blatantly abusing the patent system here in the US. This really demonstrates the need for patent reform in America.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. If the system is not reformed the economy will suffer harm.
If the government creates rents, they will be sought.
ReplyDeleteAnyone see the WSJ's article on the latest regulatory capture by money market funds? Why everyone is always so surprised is what surprises me.
The left screws taxpayers. The right screws consumers. Both destroy the free market in favour of a mercantilist system that resembles National Socialism.
ReplyDeletebut what happens when govt is absent?
a ferry over a river and he charges whatever he wishes whenever he wishes with whomever he wishes.
His buddies get across free and a stranger pays 3 times the regular rate.
isn't this how govt gets started?
I think it would be hard to find someone outside of academia who is 100% free-market.
ReplyDeleteWe are reading and commenting on the blog of a notable exception, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in academia who is 1% pro-free market.
I think WalMart is a good example. They seem ready, willing and able to compete in any market without seeking govt "protection" of their interests but it's possible there is a bigger picture than I do not see.
ReplyDeleteWalMart supports and has lobbied for minimum wage laws that would put some of its competitors out of business. The best examples are Hong Kong and Singapore, who have a great deal of trade freedom and do not need massive bilateral managed trade agreements like NAFTA.
I think it would be hard to find someone outside of academia who is 100% free-market. Self-interest does set in.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure about this. I think that if they thought about it carefully around 5% of the population would support 100% free-market conditions. In academia the number would be a tiny fraction of that.
VangelV: If we remove the power of government to meddle in voluntary transactions businesses cannot get government to provide them with special privileges.
ReplyDeleteCurious. If someone dumps waste upstream, isn't government action prudent? What if someone acquires a monopoly on a crucial commodity?
If someone dumps waste upstream
ReplyDeletethe interesting thing is that the folks engaging in the "voluntary" transaction are also damaging, without consent, the property rights of the folks downstream.
this is not, as often claimed a tragedy of the commons - the "commons" being what is "owned in common".
Nope, this is one (or more) property owners benefiting from an activity that damages downstream property owners.
this is where govt comes from.
ReplyDeleteI think WalMart is a good example. They seem ready, willing and able to compete in any market without seeking govt "protection" of their interests but it's possible there is a bigger picture than I do not see.
No, they use the market to lower people's standards if in a First World nation- much like the current President does with certain policies.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it most discussions exclude the consumer/voter as the culprit of what ails this country? It's the consumer that has free choice in their purchasing habits, free choice of employment and free choice of their elected representatives. This is the house the majority built. I certainly won't claim that we have a well informed populace. That's evident.
ReplyDeleteVangelV states:
ReplyDelete"The best examples are Hong Kong and Singapore, who have a great deal of trade freedom and do not need massive bilateral managed trade agreements like NAFTA."
Singapore has a Free Trade Agreement with the United States...
and the U.S. probably has the trade surplus with Singapore, because it is not mangaged trade.
"there is a paradox though and that is money essentially buys access, influence and ultimately favored status"
ReplyDeleteThat's what Jon is arguing against. He said: "Do not protect companies by allowing them to buy influence and favored status from government, by removing the power of government to provide such protection."
"... AND.... govt agencies created to define monopolistic practices and enforce anti-trust actions are often viewed by free-market types as wrongheaded govt intrusion."
Just what ARE those monopolistic practices? Just so we will all know what you mean. Keep in mind that out-competing your rivals isn't a monopolistic practice, but the very essence of a competitive market in which consumers are the winners.
You cannot point to an example of a natural monopoly - one using classical "monopolistic practices" - either past or present, but only to monopolies created by government, so yes, anti-trust actions are invariably wrong headed government intrusion in the market.
Of course during the Great Depression government actually encouraged and mandated trusts and cartels to impose wrong headed price controls.
"seems like you either got to have "referees" or the natural inclination of a truly free market is to set up and maintain barriers to competition."
Heh. It is these very "referees" who provide favored status that is so prized. There are no meaningful barriers to competition in a truly free market.
"but what happens when govt is absent?
ReplyDeletea ferry over a river and he charges whatever he wishes whenever he wishes with whomever he wishes."
A perfect example of a free market. If there is demand for ferry service and this appears to be a lucrative business, someone else will build a competing ferry at another location, and charge less.
"His buddies get across free and a stranger pays 3 times the regular rate."
And what is the "regular rate"? Isn't it whatever he says it is? What he chooses to charge different people isn't our business.
"isn't this how govt gets started?"
No.
"Standard Oil was very successful at killing off competition - both horizontal and vertical."
ReplyDeleteThat's because Standard Oil was the best at what they did. That's what competition means. They lowered their costs and raised the quality of their products for decades while lowering the prices they charged. At all times there were hundreds of competitors in the oil business.
This sad episode is a clear case of the Handicapper General in action. No one should be more attractive, smarter, stronger or better at producing petroleum products than anyone else. Let's ask government to "level the playing field".
Z: "What if someone acquires a monopoly on a crucial commodity?"
ReplyDeleteFor example...
Hydra,
ReplyDeleteFree markets = fair markets
"Agreed. If the system is not reformed the economy will suffer harm. "
ReplyDeleteHow would you reform the US patent system?
Curious. If someone dumps waste upstream, isn't government action prudent?
ReplyDeleteNot at all. Private ownership of the river is prudent.
What if someone acquires a monopoly on a crucial commodity?
Cite examples please. You lefties come up with all kinds of imaginary scenarios that tend not to come up in society.
No, they use the market to lower people's standards if in a First World nation- much like the current President does with certain policies.
ReplyDeleteHow does offering more stuff at lower prices lower living standards? Are people really better off if they pay their local hardware store $8 for a screwdriver that WalMart sells for $1.98?
and the U.S. has a trade surplus with Singapore because it is not mangaged trade.
ReplyDeleteThat is not a problem for Singapore because it runs trade surpluses with some countries and deficits with others. It wins as it gets a freer economy and a higher standard of living. Same with Hong Kong.
Why is it most discussions exclude the consumer/voter as the culprit of what ails this country? It's the consumer that has free choice in their purchasing habits, free choice of employment and free choice of their elected representatives. This is the house the majority built. I certainly won't claim that we have a well informed populace. That's evident.
ReplyDeleteIt is not true to say that the consumer has free choice. While in general tariffs are low there are duties on some items and plenty of non tariff barriers, that prevent consumers from choosing certain good or services. Tariffs on steel and solar panels come to mind as do 'buy American' provisions.
And it is false to say that the voter has much of a say in what happens. Both parties let the lobbyists write the legislation and provide special advantages for their clients while the voter/consumer gets screwed. It is ironic that the same sets of fools who worry needlessly about monopolies in free markets do not seem concerned about the monopoly on political power that has been created by rules written by the main parties.
Singapore has a Free Trade Agreement with the United States...
ReplyDeleteand the U.S. probably has the trade surplus with Singapore, because it is not mangaged trade.
Singapore allows goods free of tariffs. I think that you are referring to the agreement where the US promises to do the same for goods coming out of Singapore. If that agreement did not exist the US would still ship its goods to Singapore without tariffs.
Anyone see the WSJ's article on the latest regulatory capture by money market funds?
ReplyDeleteNo. A (non-pay) link or synopsis please.
His buddies get across free and a stranger pays 3 times the regular rate.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with that? Do you charge your buddies for a ride in your car?
His buddies get across free and a stranger pays 3 times the regular rate.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with that? Do you charge your buddies for a ride in your car?
seriously? If you went into McD's and they charged you more than the uy in front of you, you're OK with that?
seriously? If you went into McD's and they charged you more than the uy in front of you, you're OK with that?
ReplyDeleteFrom a legal point of view? Yes.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteIf you went into McD's and they charged you more than the uy in front of you, you're OK with that?
If I wasn't, I'd simply go to Wendy's or Burger King or Chipotle or any one of the thousands of other restaurants that I could choose from. Or I could simply cook at home.
It is not true to say that the consumer has free choice.
ReplyDeleteI still see the consumer as the driving force of our current situation as well as the potential driver for free markets. Too many times we see the problem of increased competition resulting in job loss at the local factory and the local citizens push for the business leaders along with their elected reps to take action. Voilà, a tariff, tax loophole or regulation is born. It's not intentional that they are not acting in their own long term best interest, but it solves the problem for the short term. They get to keep their jobs for a while longer. Many people support free market ideals like they do with most other things, "Not in my backyard".
And it is false to say that the voter has much of a say in what happens.
Yet the voters keep electing the same politicians that create these messes, again and again. Earmarks look good in their backyard.
Came across this Milton Friedman piece on free markets and fairness.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fff.org/freedom/0292d.asp
peak trader,
ReplyDeleteYour statistics about small businesses are interesting. But they paint a misleading picture of the U.S. economy.
Much of the economic power of small businesses is derived from their relationships with large corporations. Those important relationships are not evident in the statistics you cite, but they exist nonetheless.
Consider just a few of the small businesses which are funded indirectly by the passengers of a large airline:
1. passenger seat cover repair companies;
2. aircraft cleaning companies;
3. promotional printing companies;
4. coffee wholesalers;
5. local liquor distributors;
6. crew schedule optimization software companies;
7. wheelchair attendant services companies;
8. small construction general contractors.
I could list hundreds more. Most of the small firms who do businesses with my giant airline employer are highly dependent on our ability to attract airline travelers.
The same small business - large corporation economic relationships exist in most of the large industries in this nation.
I'm not arguing that small businesses are unimportant to economic growth. But I am arguing that statistics which ignore their dependency on large corporations are misleading.
9.
IMO, Luigi Zingales and most of the commentors hear at Carpe Diem have this backwards.
ReplyDeleteJust answer two simple questions honestly and you will understand who is the wrongdoer when government interferes with markets to benefit one party over another.
1. Whose interests is the CEO of a corporation required to serve - by law and by contract?
2. Whose interests is the elected official supposed to be serving?
When government interferes on behalf of a specific firm or industry, the guilty party is government - not the corporate executive.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletejon murphy: "I think it would be hard to find someone outside of academia who is 100% free-market. Self-interest does set in."
ReplyDeletePlease explain what you are meaning.
As I see it, everyone who engages in a free market transaction is acting in his own self-interest - or in the interest of the parties who hired him.
Perhaps you can explain by giving your opinion on a specific situation.
A man I knew leased retail space in shopping centers for the small picture framing stores he owned. His contract with the landlords gave him the exclusive right to frame pictures and sell framed pictures in those shopping centers. He was able to effectively limit his competition through a free market contract - but only in that shopping center.
Would you argue that either the picture framer or the landlord was not engaging in a free market?
In the parking lot of one of the shopping centers, an "entrepreneur" repeatedly tried to sell cheap framed art out of a big truck. The "entrepreneur" was clearly trespassing. The picture framer who held a lease called the police and had the trespasser removed. The lessee was limiting his competition, but was he violating free market principles by asking the government to protect his property rights?
Zachriel: What if someone acquires a monopoly on a crucial commodity?
ReplyDeleteVangelV: Cite examples please.
American Tobacco, American Sugar. Also, practices of quasi-monopolies, such as Microsoft which often stifled innovation by requiring computer vendors to include their OS on all their products, if they were to have it on any.
VangelV: Private ownership of the river is prudent.
So if someone dumps into the river upstream, the downstreamers are to sue. And if the upstreamers don't recognize the authority of the court and refuse to comply?
What if the upstreamers just dam the river? When you say ownership of the river, how much water does that include? And who decides?
Private ownership of the river is prudent
ReplyDeleteyou actually CAN own a river depending on where you live and you can certainly own smaller streams on your property.
But what you cannot do is pollute it or alter it in ways that affect downstream property owners.
when a proper owner "owns" a creek or river - what they actually own is not the water in it but the bed it flows over and their ability to alter that bed (like with a dam or irrigation canal) or what they can take out of the river or put in it is all not their "right" as a property owner.
When someone says tragedy of the commons - the next step in the conundrum is how do you protect the commons and what is the definition of "protection" verses what are "rights" to use?
the process for doing this is called government.
without govt, there is no real solution to "tragedy of the commons" and of all the various things that might justify government/governance, tragedy of the commons is clearly something that cannot be solved by individual ownership of property.
When someone says tragedy of the commons - the next step in the conundrum is how do you protect the commons and what is the definition of "protection" verses what are "rights" to use?
ReplyDeleteWell, this isn't a tragedy of the commons problem, but the solution is the same.
The Coase Theorem. Basically, those who are being wronged by the pollution get together with the polluters and negotiate an agreement to the mutual benefit of all involved.
Well, this isn't a tragedy of the commons problem
ReplyDeleteJon.. some who post here think it is apparently.
but what you call it is not as important (in my view) as what it really is and that is IMHO one or more property owners conducting activities that end up causing harm to other property owners.
Jon.. some who post here think it is apparently.
ReplyDeleteWell, then, they are using it incorrectly.
To be frank, I've not read every comment here. 60 comments is a lot.
Jon Murphy: The Coase Theorem. Basically, those who are being wronged by the pollution get together with the polluters and negotiate an agreement to the mutual benefit of all involved.
ReplyDelete"Coase argued that real-world transaction costs are rarely low enough to allow for efficient bargaining and hence the theorem is almost always inapplicable to economic reality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem
With water access, the answer is simple. If you are downstream, pay up or you don't get no water. A market-based solution!
one of the basic problems with pollution whether it be transported by water or by air is determining how much impact is "acceptable".
ReplyDeleteThat is the conundrum that gets the EPA in trouble.
the interesting thing is that EPA has to make the call as to what is totally unacceptable to release and what is acceptable but in what concentration limits.
they are called NDPES permits - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.
it is pure govt bureaucracy and regulation but what is the real alternative?
That is the conundrum that gets the EPA in trouble.
ReplyDeleteEPA doesn't see it as a conundrum. Anything above zero is unacceptable to them. That's why they keep ratcheting down auto emissions standards, even though we're long past the point that such brings measurable immprovement. One might also get the impression that they just hate cars.
Anything above zero is unacceptable to them
ReplyDeletethat's simply not true. you need to read up on NPDES.
ReplyDeleteit is pure govt bureaucracy and regulation but what is the real alternative?
Secure property rights and common law.
"American Tobacco, American Sugar. Also, practices of quasi-monopolies, such as Microsoft which often stifled innovation by requiring computer vendors to include their OS on all their products, if they were to have it on any."
ReplyDeleteOther than gaining more than 90% market share through aggressive business practices, did any of the three ever gain the ability to control their market by raising prices through reduced output? Or was it the case that their innovation and efficiency allowed them to reduce costs and thus prices over time?
In other words did prices in those markets increase over time due to the large market share enjoyed by these companies, or were they unable to ever "reap" outlandish profits by virtue of their monopoly status?
"Jon.. some who post here think it is apparently."
ReplyDeleteThis is a different thread, Larry, the only one using the term "tragedy of the commons" is you.
"With water access, the answer is simple. If you are downstream, pay up or you don't get no water. A market-based solution!"
ReplyDeleteHmm. Interesting. How much water do you think an upstream owner can withhold?
Hmm. Interesting. How much water do you think an upstream owner can withhold?
ReplyDeleteif the river is out west and you are using it for irrigation - ALL OF IT.
you need to read up on western water rights guy.
Ron H: Other than gaining more than 90% market share through aggressive business practices, did any of the three ever gain the ability to control their market by raising prices through reduced output?
ReplyDeleteU.S. antitrust laws do not prevent monopolies, but prevent monopolies from using nefarious means to restrict competition. So Microsoft gained a monopoly legally, but then tried to use this power to push out competition. For instance, Microsoft forced vendors to buy their OS, even for customers who didn't want it, increasing consumer costs. American Tobacco and American Sugar used regional predatory pricing to force out competitors.
Ron H: How much water do you think an upstream owner can withhold?
In some cases, all of it, while dumping their effluence.
if the river is out west and you are using it for irrigation - ALL OF IT.
ReplyDeleteyou need to read up on western water rights guy.
I think that your ignorance is showing up again my friend. In the West water rights are not tied to land ownership and can be sold to others. A person can't build a dam and keep the water for himself because the water does not belong to him but to individuals who had a prior beneficial use. Try reading up on a subject before you comment on it please.
the point is that upstream owners CAN keep ALL of the water and you are wrong - the water rights DO go with the land.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot own water rights without owning the land the water flows through dum dum.
and as Z pointed out - you can, at the same time, have people putting effluents into the stream while people upstream are using most all of it and what is left is heavily polluted.
and this is why you have NPDES regulations.... and the EPA.
you still demonstrate ignorance of water rights and regulations and why they exist and must exist.
U.S. antitrust laws do not prevent monopolies, but prevent monopolies from using nefarious means to restrict competition. So Microsoft gained a monopoly legally, but then tried to use this power to push out competition. For instance, Microsoft forced vendors to buy their OS, even for customers who didn't want it, increasing consumer costs. American Tobacco and American Sugar used regional predatory pricing to force out competitors.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Microsoft never had much of the total operating system share in the US because only PCs used the type of system that it was selling. Second, vendors were never FORCED to buy MS DOS or Windows based operating systems. They could have found other systems but if they wanted MS Office software they had to offer an Microsoft OS. Microsoft was not prosecuted for hiking prices or hurting consumers but for giving out Explorer for free and offering other add-ons without charging for them. And there was always Apple with its own hardware and operating system. That is what I have used for a very long time and that is an option that all consumers have always had.
In some cases, all of it, while dumping their effluence.
No. That can't happen. Try reading up on the subject please.
In some cases, all of it, while dumping their effluence.
ReplyDeleteNo. That can't happen. Try reading up on the subject please.
this coming from someone who doesn't know shit from shinola on the subject to start with and proved it early on and advocates concepts that would never work except at a small village self-governance scale.
the point is that upstream owners CAN keep ALL of the water and you are wrong - the water rights DO go with the land.
ReplyDeleteThat is not true. The West has a system of prior-appropriation water rights. We have gone over this before and you were given all the references necessary to learn something. You refused to learn and are showing your ignorance and stupidity again. As I have written many times, try reading and learning.
this coming from someone who doesn't know shit from shinola on the subject to start with and proved it early on and advocates concepts that would never work except at a small village self-governance scale.
ReplyDeleteNo, it is common knowledge dumdum. Try reading.
uh huh...
ReplyDeleteso there are EQUAL property rights?
Nope.
so.. property owners worked out how to share water without govt?
Nope.
so - people agreed to not dump pollutants without govt.
Nope.
it's good that you're finally looking up the info but guy, you proved some time ago you had no clue.
it's good that you're finally looking up the info but guy, you proved some time ago you had no clue.
ReplyDeleteI gave you references a long time ago dumdum. The fact that you got everything mixed up and are claiming the opposite of what is true shows that you are either lazy or stupid. There is no way to spin the fact that you were dead wrong and are mixing up riparian with prior-appropriation rights. And even if you were thinking of riparian rights you are missing the reasonable use principle which would make your argument wrong again.
I gave you references a long time ago
ReplyDeleteyeah.. about an ancient self-governance model that did not work and did not survive to the modern world because it was unworkable.
that was your "reference"
VangelV: A person can't build a dam and keep the water for himself because the water does not belong to him but to individuals who had a prior beneficial use.
ReplyDeleteSays who? And by what mechanism can you stop someone from damming the source of a river that they control?
VangelV: Microsoft was not prosecuted for hiking prices or hurting consumers but for giving out Explorer for free and offering other add-ons without charging for them.
That too. Using a monopoly in one product to acquire a monopoly in another, or forcing vendors to include an OS customers don't always want, or prevent erosion through innovation of their existing monopoly. The result is to impede innovation.
VangelV: No. That can't happen. Try reading up on the subject please.
In most places, it doesn't happen because of various laws that regulate water usage. Elsewhere, water is often the source of conflict.
VangelV: No, it is common knowledge dumdum.
Okay, you answered the question. Courts and police and juridictional laws.
one of the more interesting and seemingly contradictory aspects of western water law is the fact that the courts have determined that there are not equal rights for all property owners and that prior historical use trumps what, in other places is equal downstream water rights.
ReplyDeletebefore the courts ruled on this - there was open conflict among property owners because downstream owners were insisting that they had equal rights and upstream owners disagreed.
ultimately the courts sided with the upstream property owners - and against the interests of downstream property owners.
yeah.. about an ancient self-governance model that did not work and did not survive to the modern world because it was unworkable.
ReplyDeletethat was your "reference"
No. I am talking about references that deal with water rights as they are today. While they came from what you consider un unworkable world they are still in effect today. And, as usual, in your haste and ignorance you got things totally backwards.
Says who? And by what mechanism can you stop someone from damming the source of a river that they control?
ReplyDeleteSays who? Try looking at the water rights systems that we have in place.
That too. Using a monopoly in one product to acquire a monopoly in another, or forcing vendors to include an OS customers don't always want, or prevent erosion through innovation of their existing monopoly. The result is to impede innovation.
But you got this wrong. Giving stuff away does not prevent other players from competing if the use of the system provides value. Explorer is not dominant and never had a massive share. Firefox, Safari, and Chrome have all gained market share as IE has not kept up with what consumers want. The fact that Microsoft was a bigger company with more resources did not prevent it from losing share to better free browsers.
In most places, it doesn't happen because of various laws that regulate water usage. Elsewhere, water is often the source of conflict.
In some places? We are discussing the US, not Africa. In the US that can't happen because of the water rights systems that are in place. Neither riparian rights nor prior-appropriation rights allow that to happen. Time to do some reading and move along children. The facts are what they are and so simple that even a child can understand them.
Okay, you answered the question. Courts and police and juridictional laws.
No. A system of water rights developed from English Common Law in the East and private legal agreements in the West. Those systems can be enforced by any legal system. In the West the water rights issues were settled by private arbitration until the government showed up and took over the function. In the East common law courts handled things as they used to in Europe without much input from the government.
VangelV: But you got this wrong.
ReplyDeleteThat was the finding of U.S. courts.
VangelV: Explorer is not dominant and never had a massive share.
Huh?
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/ms-yahoo-art/ie-market-share.gif
VangelV: Try looking at the water rights systems that we have in place.
In the U.S., water rights are determined by various laws and treaties.
VangelV: We are discussing the US, not Africa.
We were speaking generally, but in the U.S., water rights are determined by various laws and treaties.
VangelV: No. A system of water rights developed from English Common Law in the East and private legal agreements in the West.
Huh? Your citation pointed to Yunker v. Nichols, which provided a legal resolution of a dispute between two landowners.
VangelV: In the West the water rights issues were settled by private arbitration until the government showed up and took over the function.
In the case of Yunker, who found his water supply cut off (something you said couldn't happen), he took his case to the territorial court. What other recourse did he have?
the wiki reference? I thought you thought wiki was crap?
ReplyDeletedo you now rely on wiki for credible info?
if that's what u were talking about, I've been familiar with western water rights for decades.
ReplyDeleteHow does offering more stuff at lower prices lower living standards? Are people really better off if they pay their local hardware store $8 for a screwdriver that WalMart sells for $1.96?
That $1.96 is only the tip of the iceberg in costs.
That company has killed more jobs than the US Government ever has in the last 30 years - without any snark about buggy whips. This would be from suppliers not from the Third World; any other kind of country does not have the apparatus to give maximum freedom to businesses while giving workers the least freedom.
In addition, it hates the people that work for them - given their practices of weaponizing contract labor and other various anti-worker devices of Southern origin. They would rather litigate their enemies out of existence than compete with a superior way to meet the demand.
To think of it, that few dollars in "savings" is paid in blood, lost opportunities, and lost freedom.
"if the river is out west and you are using it for irrigation - ALL OF IT."
ReplyDeleteLOL
I expected that answer from you. The question isn't about rights, it's about physics.
physics?
ReplyDeletethe heck you say...
That was the finding of U.S. courts.
ReplyDeleteSo what? History has proven them wrong. It is not just Microsoft but a number of different institutions that hand out free browsers that were better than what AOL had to offer. And MSFT does not have much market share given that Chrome is used by more people than IE and that Safari and Firefox are not far behind.
Huh?
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/ms-yahoo-art/ie-market-share.gif
IE is still given away for free but is far from dominant as new better systems are also given away for free. Consumers never bought IE and thanks to MSFT are not paying to purchase any of the major browsers. So how exactly were they harmed because they did not have to pay AOL for their crappy browser? The best MSFT could do was around 90% of the PC market and had no way to stop the better competitors from taking market share from its products. It was not the courts that took market share away but Google and Apple.
In the U.S., water rights are determined by various laws and treaties.
Yes. And those laws make it clear that property owners can't do what you say that they can. You need a bit of education.
We were speaking generally, but in the U.S., water rights are determined by various laws and treaties.
You said that an owner can dam up the river and deny others downstream the water. The laws say that they can't.
In the case of Yunker, who found his water supply cut off (something you said couldn't happen), he took his case to the territorial court. What other recourse did he have?
But it was not his water supply because in the West the water rights are not attached to the property but to first beneficial use. You and your pal obviously have problem understanding what that means because both of you thought that it meant that a land owner beside a river could dam up that river to deny those who had rights to it the water. They can't.
the wiki reference? I thought you thought wiki was crap?
ReplyDeletedo you now rely on wiki for credible info?
if that's what u were talking about, I've been familiar with western water rights for decades.
Wiki can be crap. I gave you plenty of citations regarding water rights that you have obviously not read. If you dispute any part please tell us where the commentary is wrong but try not to pull things out of your ass as usual. Stick with the facts as they are and the law as it has been established.
That $1.96 is only the tip of the iceberg in costs.
ReplyDeleteRight. People are better off if they pay 300% more so that mom and pop, who pay their workers less than Walmart can be wasteful and still make a profit.
That company has killed more jobs than the US Government ever has in the last 30 years - without any snark about buggy whips. This would be from suppliers not from the Third World; any other kind of country does not have the apparatus to give maximum freedom to businesses while giving workers the least freedom.
It is a retailer that has created jobs. I believe that it has more employees than any other US corporation. That is because it offers to consumers what they want; low priced goods.
In addition, it hates the people that work for them - given their practices of weaponizing contract labor and other various anti-worker devices of Southern origin. They would rather litigate their enemies out of existence than compete with a superior way to meet the demand.
Hate their workers? How is that?
Several of my co-workers had relocated from other areas, where they had worked at other Wal-Marts. They wanted more of the same. Everyone agreed that Wal-Mart was preferable to the local Target, where the hourly pay was lower and workers were said to be treated with less respect (an opinion which I was unable to verify). Most of all, my coworkers wanted to avoid those “mom-and-pop” stores beloved by social commentators where, I was told, employees had to deal with quixotic management policies, while lacking the opportunities for promotion that exist in a large corporation.
To think of it, that few dollars in "savings" is paid in blood, lost opportunities, and lost freedom.
What lost freedom? People line up and fill hundreds of applications for each job opening. They are treated better than at Target and certainly better than small mom and pop stores that pay little and offer nothing in benefits or opportunities. If you look at the management of the company you see that most of the people rose up through the ranks. You can't ask for more opportunity than that.
Z: "U.S. antitrust laws do not prevent monopolies, but prevent monopolies from using nefarious means to restrict competition. "
ReplyDeleteHm. And all this time I thought antitrust laws were meant to protect consumers.
Did consumers suffer from predatory pricing by American Tobacco and American sugar? It sounds like they got cigarettes and sugar cheaper. How awful for them.
When regional competitors were driven out of business, did those two companies raise prices to take advantage of their now unchallenged position in the market, and recover their losses from previous predatory pricing? In other words, did they do what monopolies are theoretically supposed to do?
"For instance, Microsoft forced vendors to buy their OS, even for customers who didn't want it, increasing consumer costs."
You must not realize how funny that sounds. Costs are only higher for those who don't want a Windows OS on their PC. For the other 90% the costs are lower for a PC with a preloaded OS than for a PC and separate OS.
How exactly were venders *forced* to bundle Windows OS?
That is similar to complaining that you can't buy a Chevrolet without Goodyear tires, because Goodyear forces GM to ship cars to dealers with Goodyear tires already on them.
As for the browser, it was (is) bundled as part of the OS, and was therefore essentially free. Do you believe charging separately for a browser would lower consumer costs?
All the antitrust complaints came from competitors who weren't able to compete head to head with Microsoft. How many consumers were complaining?
Since then has Microsoft jacked up their prices to take advantage of the market dominance they enjoy?
What about Apple who has enjoyed a small but steady share of the market since before Microsoft existed, and who doesn't even compete on price?
Technical people, those with computer skills complain about Microsoft, but for the vast majority of buyers who just want to "start me up" and go, a PC preloaded with Windows and IE may be the easiest answer.
VangelV: IE is still given away for free but is far from dominant as new better systems are also given away for free.
ReplyDeleteThat's not what you said. You said IE never had dominance. What happened was that Microsoft, in a matter of a few years, acquired dominance in the browser market with an inferior product. Today, there are more options, but the practice was certainly an attempt of using a (legal) monopoly in one area to push out their competitor in another. This inhibited innovation for years.
VangelV: You said that an owner can dam up the river and deny others downstream the water. The laws say that they can't.
We asked what prevented people from doing so. And the answer was laws and treaties.
VangelV: But it was not his water supply because in the West the water rights are not attached to the property but to first beneficial use.
Nichols diverted the water. Yunkers sued and the case set the precedent concerning first beneficial use. So we are in agreement. It is laws and treaties that protect water rights.
Ron H: And all this time I thought antitrust laws were meant to protect consumers.
It also protects businesses by barring monopolies from restraint of trade, a common law doctrine.
Ron H: Costs are only higher for those who don't want a Windows OS on their PC.
Yes, Windows makes non-Windows users subsidize their product, reducing competition and innovation.
Ron H: Did consumers suffer from predatory pricing by American Tobacco and American sugar? It sounds like they got cigarettes and sugar cheaper.
Not once they established the monopoly. They also controlled the price paid to farmers.
Ron H: That is similar to complaining that you can't buy a Chevrolet without Goodyear tires, because Goodyear forces GM to ship cars to dealers with Goodyear tires already on them.
Except Chevrolet doesn't have a monopoly, doesn't make the tires, and are trying to use their monopoly in the car industry to acquire a monopoly the tire industry. Your example suggests you don't understand the issue.
re: water rights
ReplyDeletesets the precedent that all property owners do not have the same rights.
2. - using that precedent, the law now says that if a waterbody is already 100% allocated for a use that further plans by other property owners to also "use" the water body - can be denied on the basis that existing property owners have already used up the resource and no further degradation is allowed.
this is how govt deals with "tragedy of the commons" and the remedy ends up with some property owners having superior rights over others.
Property owners themselves - without a govt - had no solution that they would agree on - so they just would continue to use the resource even if it destroyed it.
this is an example where govt does it better than property owners.
That's not what you said. You said IE never had dominance. What happened was that Microsoft, in a matter of a few years, acquired dominance in the browser market with an inferior product. Today, there are more options, but the practice was certainly an attempt of using a (legal) monopoly in one area to push out their competitor in another. This inhibited innovation for years.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I did not word it clearly enough. The courts only looked at PCs, not all computers. Given the fact that there were many more systems out there MSFT was never as dominant in the computing sector as it was in the PC field. And as has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions, consumers are not harmed when things are given away for free. History has shown that the court was wrong because MSFT's ability to give away its browser did not prevent other companies from competing and getting a bigger share. At the time of the decision Google was nothing. Today its browser is being used by more people than MSFT's browser. I use a Mac system but mostly use Firefox and Chrome. My wife uses Firefox. My kids use Safari and Opera. Nobody uses IE on a regular basis and only one of our laptops even has it installed. I suspect that my household is not very unique in that respect.
We asked what prevented people from doing so. And the answer was laws and treaties.
That is not exactly what you said. You asked, "What if the upstreamers just dam the river? When you say ownership of the river, how much water does that include? And who decides?" The answer was already provided previously. We have systems of water rights that have to be followed. Those systems do not permit a construction of a dam to deny water rights in the West where prior-appropriation means that the rights do not come with land ownership or in the East where reasonable use principle is the standard under the riparian system.
The fact is that your argument makes no sense because people are prohibited from doing what you said that they could. And let me note the different ways that the systems were developed. In the East the riparian rights were based on English Common Law decisions that were established without the help of the Crown long before governments got into the court business. In the West the rights were developed by people who were beyond the frontier and had developed a private law system.
Nichols diverted the water. Yunkers sued and the case set the precedent concerning first beneficial use. So we are in agreement. It is laws and treaties that protect water rights.
Nice diversion to hide ignorance. Nobody ever claimed that there were no laws that prevented what you and your pal said would happen.
It also protects businesses by barring monopolies from restraint of trade, a common law doctrine.
LOL...Why do you want to 'protect' businesses who rip off consumers by charging more than their competitors? Your leanings to National Socialism are showing again.
Yes, Windows makes non-Windows users subsidize their product, reducing competition and innovation.
Not at all. The PC vendors can choose to try and market machines without Windows.
Not once they established the monopoly. They also controlled the price paid to farmers.
There is monopoly that can harm consumers in a free market system because competition would have an easy time of it given the high margins that such harmful prices produce. Like your friend you are pulling stuff out of your ass again.
OOPS...
ReplyDeleteThat should be, "There is NO monopoly that can harm consumers in a free market system because competition would have an easy time of it given the high margins that such harmful prices produce. Like your friend you are pulling stuff out of your ass again."
sets the precedent that all property owners do not have the same rights.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. The water rights are separate from the property ownership. When someone purchases that property s/he already knows that s/he cannot use up all the water that s/he wants and deny those that have a right to it. This is not new. It was established more than a century ago.
Correct. The water rights are separate from the property ownership. When someone purchases that property s/he already knows that s/he cannot use up all the water that s/he wants and deny those that have a right to it. This is not new. It was established more than a century ago.
ReplyDeletenot that way in the East (so far) and what it means is that property rights are NOT equal AND that GOVT can make that determination.
VangelV: At the time of the decision Google was nothing. Today its browser is being used by more people than MSFT's browser.
ReplyDeleteYes, but that was still in the future. It's a fact that Netscape innovated browser technology, and was then forced out by Microsoft using its dominance in the OS market to push Netscape out. It was an advantage no one else had at the time. The effect was to reduce innovation in browser technology for several years.
VangelV: You asked, "What if the upstreamers just dam the river? When you say ownership of the river, how much water does that include? And who decides?" The answer was already provided previously.
That's right, as we acknowledged at the time. The answer is laws and treaties. We seem to be in agreement.
VangelV: Why do you want to 'protect' businesses who rip off consumers by charging more than their competitors?
Businesses have a right to compete on an equal basis. In the long run, competition is the driving force of innovation.
The answer is laws and treaties. We seem to be in agreement
ReplyDeleteno. this is a big change from his prior stated philosophy, where he most often argues that property owners themselves can decide and that we don't need no stinkin, incompetent, imperious, thug govt telling property owners what to do and paid for by stealing money from property owners.
:-)
Yes, but that was still in the future.
ReplyDeleteYes it was. And the future proved the idiots wrong.
It's a fact that Netscape innovated browser technology, and was then forced out by Microsoft using its dominance in the OS market to push Netscape out. It was an advantage no one else had at the time. The effect was to reduce innovation in browser technology for several years.
Not at all. Innovation was not reduced. In exploded and MSFT found itself under attack to the point where it is an also-ran today.
That's right, as we acknowledged at the time. The answer is laws and treaties. We seem to be in agreement.
Not quite. Your idiot pal was asked, "Hmm. Interesting. How much water do you think an upstream owner can withhold?"
He answered, "if the river is out west and you are using it for irrigation - ALL OF IT. you need to read up on western water rights guy."
Well, he did not know about western water rights. No owner of land can dam up the river and use ALL of the water for irrigation because the water rights do not go with the land ownership rights.
Businesses have a right to compete on an equal basis. In the long run, competition is the driving force of innovation.
But they are not equal. Some companies are better than others. Some have more resources. Some got into the right space sooner. The free markets do not care for the producers because they are driven by purchasing decisions made by consumers. If consumers would rather pay for Netscape browsers they could easily do so.
not that way in the East (so far) and what it means is that property rights are NOT equal AND that GOVT can make that determination.
ReplyDeleteThe East has a huge amount of water. There is no reason to treat water in arid states the same way as water in states where water is abundant. The federal government actually has no business getting involved because both systems were developed without its input and disputes can be handled without it,. If the West had a lot more water a riparian system could have been adopted. It didn't but even under such a system the reasonable use principle would prevent the type of abuse you claim would be common.
VangelV: Explorer is not dominant and never had a massive share.
ReplyDeleteVangelV: Innovation was not reduced.
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/ms-yahoo-art/ie-market-share.gif
VangelV: No owner of land can dam up the river and use ALL of the water for irrigation because the water rights do not go with the land ownership rights.
Nichols did, but the courts ruled he couldn't. So the law won. As we said.
The federal government actually has no business getting involved because both systems were developed without its input and disputes can be handled without it,
ReplyDeleteWas it not a court that decided it?
I'm not aware of any non-govt agreements among land-owners with respect to water rights.
all of it has been decided by the govt courts.
VangelV: The federal government actually has no business getting involved because both systems were developed without its input and disputes can be handled without it.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Yunker, who found his water supply cut off (something you said couldn't happen), he took his case to the territorial court. What other recourse did he have?
VangelV: Innovation was not reduced.
ReplyDeletehttp://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/ms-yahoo-art/ie-market-share.gif
But it was not reduced.
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
VangelV: No owner of land can dam up the river and use ALL of the water for irrigation because the water rights do not go with the land ownership rights.
Nichols did, but the courts ruled he couldn't. So the law won. As we said.
No, your pal said that the owner could dam up the water and use it and suggested that we look at the Western areas. I pointed out that in the West the prior-appropriation system did not attach water rights to the land. You boys were wrong and are now running cover. As I pointed out, long before governments got into the game the issues of water rights were solved by local communities and Customs and Common Law. There is no need for government because it can only take away rights from individuals.
As I pointed out, long before governments got into the game the issues of water rights were solved by local communities and Customs and Common Law.
ReplyDeletereally? how about some when and where examples?
people got killed over water rights ... before the courts got involved.
the "prior appropriation" is a govt concept not a non-govt property owner agreement.
VangelV: But it was not reduced.
ReplyDeleteOf course it was. An inferior product dominated the market for several years.
VangelV: There is no need for government because it can only take away rights from individuals.
In the case of Yunker, who found his water supply cut off (something you said couldn't happen), he took his case to the territorial court. What other recourse did he have?
In the case of Yunker, who found his water supply cut off (something you said couldn't happen), he took his case to the territorial court. What other recourse did he have?
ReplyDeleteAs many have pointed out before, the issue of water rights goes back millennia. It is not just English Common Law that dealt with water rights. Riparian water rights are part of the Justinian code and even the prior-appropriation rights are a part of a more complex system in many regions.
In the US the whole water rights issue is a big mess thanks to the fingerprints of government. States are usually in court at any given time, particularly in the West, trying to fight for more control. They even fine and threaten individuals for collecting rainwater on their own properties. The sooner the government can be rid of in these cases the better.
VangelV: As many have pointed out before, the issue of water rights goes back millennia.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer the question. In the case of Yunker, who found his water supply cut off (something you said couldn't happen), he took his case to the territorial court. What other recourse did he have?
"The appropriation doctrine originated in Colorado in 1872 when the territorial court ruled in Yunker v. Nichols, 1 Colo. 552 (1872), that a non-riparian user who had previously applied part of the water from a stream to beneficial use had superior rights to the water with respect to a riparian owner who claimed a right to use of all the water at a later time. The question was not squarely presented again to the Colorado Court until 1882 when in the landmark case, Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443 (1882}, the court explicitly adopted the appropriation doctrine and rejected the riparian doctrine, citing Colorado irrigation and mining practices and the nature of the climate. The decision in Coffin ruled that prior to adoption of the appropriation doctrine in the Colorado Constitution of 1876 that the riparian doctrine had never been the law in Colorado.[1][2] Within 20 years the appropriation doctrine, the so-called Colorado Doctrine, had been adopted, in whole or part, by most of the states in the Western United States that had an arid climate"
ReplyDeleteshow how this was worked out by property owners alone before then.
show how this is worked out in other parts of the world - without govt.
"The appropriation doctrine originated in Colorado in 1872 when the territorial court ruled in Yunker v. Nichols, 1 Colo. 552 (1872), that a non-riparian user who had previously applied part of the water from a stream to beneficial use had superior rights to the water with respect to a riparian owner who claimed a right to use of all the water at a later time. The question was not squarely presented again to the Colorado Court until 1882 when in the landmark case, Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443 (1882}, the court explicitly adopted the appropriation doctrine and rejected the riparian doctrine, citing Colorado irrigation and mining practices and the nature of the climate. The decision in Coffin ruled that prior to adoption of the appropriation doctrine in the Colorado Constitution of 1876 that the riparian doctrine had never been the law in Colorado.[1][2] Within 20 years the appropriation doctrine, the so-called Colorado Doctrine, had been adopted, in whole or part, by most of the states in the Western United States that had an arid climate"
ReplyDeleteshow how this was worked out by property owners alone before then.
show how this is worked out in other parts of the world - without govt.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Yunker, who found his water supply cut off (something you said couldn't happen), he took his case to the territorial court. What other recourse did he have?
I said that it could not happen and I was right because both riparian and prior-appropriation systems do not allow that to happen. Your pal said that someone who owned land next to the river could build a dam and use all of the water. That is not the case.
I said that it could not happen and I was right because both riparian and prior-appropriation systems do not allow that to happen. Your pal said that someone who owned land next to the river could build a dam and use all of the water. That is not the case.
ReplyDeleteno. no. How could it NOT happen PRIOR to govt becoming involved?
it DID happen.
you do not understand the geography of western rivers guy.
it is EASY to block off many rivers once the spring melt recedes.
a small dam diverting the water into irrigation ditches is all it takes.
OH.. and Riparian Law ???
ReplyDeleteI thought you were saying that PRIOR to law that property owners agreed among themselves on how to share - and because of that govt was not "needed".
come on guy.. are you so wedded to your ideology you cannot even admit what is obvious?
really? how about some when and where examples?
ReplyDeletepeople got killed over water rights ... before the courts got involved.
the "prior appropriation" is a govt concept not a non-govt property owner agreement.
The Colorado Territorial Tribunal simply recognized what was happening in the territory. The settlers got there long before the government had a presence and established many rules because of the extensive mining activities that were going on. You were provided references that described how all this worked. If you did not bother looking at them it is your problem, not mine. A good place to start, if you are interested, is the book, The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier, and look at the references that are provided in the book. That is a good start that will answer 90% of what you claim to want to know. But you have shown yourself not to really want to know very much so I doubt that you will ever bother learning the inconvenient facts.
Of course it was. An inferior product dominated the market for several years.
ReplyDeleteIE was a superior product. That is why consumers rejected Netscape.
You didn't answer the question. In the case of Yunker, who found his water supply cut off (something you said couldn't happen), he took his case to the territorial court. What other recourse did he have?
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with him going to court just as I have no problem with someone going to court when his neighbour allows pollution to cross over the property boundary. What I said, is that people could not be denied water by property owners wanting to build a dam because the systems of water rights do not permit that to happen.
Van - that book is NOT an objective source guy.
ReplyDeletethe guy who wrote it has an agenda.
you have not provided any credible references guy.
you are suffering from confirmation bias when you only believe what confirms your beliefs and you reject what contradicts it and your own sources are biased to support your beliefs.
Van - if property owners had it all worked out WHY did they go to the territorial courts?
ReplyDeleteshow how this was worked out by property owners alone before then.
ReplyDeleteshow how this is worked out in other parts of the world - without govt.
I did dumdum. I gave you references months ago that described how this worked. The fact that you never looked at the material is your problem and explains your ignorance, not mine. It was no surprise that the Colorado Territorial Court recognized local practices rather than the traditional riparian system that was used in areas where water was plentiful.
no. no. How could it NOT happen PRIOR to govt becoming involved?
ReplyDeleteThere were courts before the government. Didn't you know that?
What I said, is that people could not be denied water by property owners wanting to build a dam because the systems of water rights do not permit that to happen
ReplyDeletereally?
who enforced it?
I thought you were saying that PRIOR to law that property owners agreed among themselves on how to share - and because of that govt was not "needed".
ReplyDeletecome on guy.. are you so wedded to your ideology you cannot even admit what is obvious?
Why do you suppose that a government tribunal went away from the established system that had been around for 1,400 years? It recognized the customs in the area that were established by the settlers before the government had a presence in the region.
I suggest that you take a look at the book that I referenced and that you take a look at some of the references that the authors use as support.
I thought you were saying that PRIOR to law that property owners agreed among themselves on how to share - and because of that govt was not "needed".
ReplyDeletecome on guy.. are you so wedded to your ideology you cannot even admit what is obvious?
Why do you suppose that a government tribunal went away from the established system that had been around for 1,400 years? It recognized the customs in the area that were established by the settlers before the government had a presence in the region.
I suggest that you take a look at the book that I referenced and that you take a look at some of the references that the authors use as support.
" Why do you suppose that a government tribunal went away from the established system that had been around for 1,400 years? It recognized the customs in the area that were established by the settlers before the government had a presence in the region. "
ReplyDeleteyou say this. you have zero evidence of it other than what one biased guy said in one book.
if what you said was true - wouldn't it be easily verified by a wide variety of sources including Wiki?
are you so wedded to your ideology that you will not admit the reality all around you and cling to off-the-wall books written by folks who have no credibility at all?
VangelV: IE was a superior product. That is why consumers rejected Netscape.
ReplyDeleteHeh, no. IE won because it was free and included, as the courts found.
VangelV: I have no problem with him going to court just as I have no problem with someone going to court when his neighbour allows pollution to cross over the property boundary.
Right. Law and treaty.
VangelV: It was no surprise that the Colorado Territorial Court recognized local practices rather than the traditional riparian system that was used in areas where water was plentiful.
Huh? Nichols diverted the water. That was local practice. It required the force of law to get him to stop. What other recourse did Yunker have?
What other recourse did Yunker have? .
ReplyDeletehe was supposed to "work with" Nichols so that no nasty govt and courts would mess things up.
Van says they had a prior good system and the govt and courts messed it up but when you ask for some evidence, he cites ONE book of which is not online.
when you ask for ANY other evidence, it's a no go.
He has to stick to his story line or else he'd have to admit that govt has a legitimate purpose and that cannot be allowed in his theology.
Larry G: he was supposed to "work with" Nichols so that no nasty govt and courts would mess things up.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that is that Nichols had no incentive to "work with" Yunkers.
The problem with that is that Nichols had no incentive to "work with" Yunkers
ReplyDelete100% true.
Van has argued before that the property owners - as a group - will decide what is right or wrong - and enforce it.
that's government if you think about it.
but Van thinks that the other property owners would figure out what was "right" and then "work" on Nichols to be more fair to Yunker - or else.
Van goes around his elbow to avoid admitting that even a collaborative group that decides issues by vote or acclimation is de facto government.
and he doesn't have any solution to the people that are further downstream... say 50 or 100 miles who are affected by the upstream group of property owners...
if they don't get water downstream... too bad - apparently - unless they all get on their horses and ride 50 miles to talk to the upstream owners...
Van says they had all of this worked out and it's in ONE BOOK and not on the web.. just that one book.
geeze...
What I said, is that people could not be denied water by property owners wanting to build a dam because the systems of water rights do not permit that to happen
ReplyDeletereally?
who enforced it?
The courts dumdum. Common law and customs law courts have been handling these issues even before the government courts. And the government courts handle them. The system of rights is very clear and no owner is permitted to do what you claim he will do without paying compensation to those he has harmed.
re: " Common law and customs law courts"
ReplyDeletecan you provide some cites to back that up? and no...books for sale on Amazon don't count.
Van - that book is NOT an objective source guy.
ReplyDeletethe guy who wrote it has an agenda.
you have not provided any credible references guy.
you are suffering from confirmation bias when you only believe what confirms your beliefs and you reject what contradicts it and your own sources are biased to support your beliefs.
An agenda? What you have is a work of scholarship supported with facts and plenty of references. The fact that history argues against your own agenda does not change reality. People like you forget just how little impact government used to have in the US. Even anarchists like Kropotkin did not believe that a revolution was necessary in the US because it had so little government meddling in the lives of ordinary people. Governments at all levels spent very little and most of the services were paid for by users. In fact, paying for government by direct taxation was prohibited because the founders believed that direct taxation was responsible for tyranny. The system that you see is pretty much a recent creation that began with the birth of the progressive movement that was pushing Socialism. Most of the increases in the size of government were made in the past few decades but that is now at a breaking point because there is no way to pay for the damage that has been done to the economy. In the end the warfare state that is supported by the right and the welfare state that is supported by the left will have to be cut down significantly.
Van - if property owners had it all worked out WHY did they go to the territorial courts?
ReplyDeleteThe rules were worked out. That does not mean that the rules were always obeyed.
re: " An agenda? What you have is a work of scholarship supported with facts and plenty of references"
ReplyDeletewhat you have is a biased work not an objective examination of the issue.
Tell me what organization this man is involved with and has a website for.
what you have is a biased work not an objective examination of the issue.
ReplyDeleteTell me what organization this man is involved with and has a website for.
They are academics. Anderson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. P.J. Hill is professor of economics at Wheaton College and has a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago. He is a historian who also happens to be a rancher in the West. Both are with an environmental think tank and believe that free markets produce better examples. Both are prolific writers and have written more than ten books each. I like the book that Anderson wrote with Bruce Bruce Yandle of Bootleggers and Baptists fame.
Most of the sources that were used come from academics who have studied the Old West and have used original sources to show how law and order were established beyond the frontier. They mostly deal with original data and descriptions of the institutions that were developed. Since these authors were around long before the politiciaation of academia and the era of big government it is hard to argue that they were pushing an agenda.
you missed this: "
ReplyDeleteWhat is PERC?
PERC—the Property and Environment Research Center—is the nation’s oldest and largest institute dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets. Founded 30 years ago in Bozeman, Montana, it began as a think tank where scholars documented how government regulation and bureaucracy have led to environmental degradation."
so he has a pre-ordained AGENDA against Govt....
so why would you think his writings would be at all objective?
"Except Chevrolet doesn't have a monopoly, doesn't make the tires, and are trying to use their monopoly in the car industry to acquire a monopoly the tire industry. Your example suggests you don't understand the issue."
ReplyDeleteLet me try again:
Goodyear has an exclusive agreement with Chevrolet to use Goodyear tires. Microsoft has an exclusive agreement with PC makers to pre-install Windows. Those few buyers who don't want Goodyear tires or Windows will pay more for their preference. The vast majority of buyers who accept the default tires or default OS are getting their car or PC cheaper than if they had to order tires or an OS separately. The overall cost of PCs and Chevrolets are lower because of this policy.
Get it now? 95 people are better off for every five who aren't.
"It also protects businesses by barring monopolies from restraint of trade, a common law doctrine"
Restraint of trade must work to harm consumers not just competitors. Were cigarette and sugar customers faced with higher prices after consolidation of producers? You haven't made that clear.
"Van says they had a prior good system and the govt and courts messed it up but when you ask for some evidence, he cites ONE book of which is not online."
ReplyDeleteHow about the original material from which the book was developed?
You can save the document as an .epub if you prefer.
thanks of the link but reading this book proves it is not an objective work.
ReplyDeletethe guy has a pre-ordained agenda and the book becomes the supporting argument for his beliefs.
that's not scholarly at all.
this is yet another example of confirmation bias where people seek out only those things that support their position - not truly interested in an objective look at the issue - just confirmation of their own bias.
" The Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI), based in Auburn, Alabama, is an American libertarian academic organization engaged in research and scholarship in the fields of economics, philosophy and political economy. The institute describes its mission as placing "human choice at the center of economic theory", to encourage "critical historical research", and to defend "the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive."
ReplyDeleteNow - this is NOT an institute that is interested in performing objective analysis of economics.
Nope.
This is an organization who believes in a particular thing and what they publish is in support of that thing.
A uniformly biased approach that they try to cloak as "academic" or "scholarly".
A an academic scholar seeks answers and truth - not confirmation of their beliefs.
People who say they are interested in finding the answers and the truth do not rely on or use organizations that have self-avowed biases unless the actual goal is basically to confirm your own bias.
It's fine to have ones own beliefs, we all do but to categorize it as academic or scholarly is a joke.
VangelV: The rules were worked out.
ReplyDeleteNichols and Yunker apparently disagreed on the applicable rule. In any case, as you have never answered the question, we can conclude that Yunker had no other recourse but the law.
Ron H: Goodyear has an exclusive agreement with Chevrolet to use Goodyear tires. Microsoft has an exclusive agreement with PC makers to pre-install Windows.
The difference is that 1) Chevrolet is not a monopoly. 2) Chevrolet doesn't own Goodyear.
thanks of the link but reading this book proves it is not an objective work.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as an OBJECTIVE work in the social sciences. It is up to you to look at the original data and see what it shows. On this issue the facts are clear. Common and Customs laws predate government and in the specific case in the Old West law and order on the frontier were developed by private institutions.
According to your standard above, we can never look at any argument put forward by Krugman, any union activist, or anyone who is a part of any school of thought because of bias because the author is not objective. If that is the case what do you have other than people like you, who are clearly biased, pulling stuff out of their ass.
" The Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI), based in Auburn, Alabama, is an American libertarian academic organization engaged in research and scholarship in the fields of economics, philosophy and political economy. The institute describes its mission as placing "human choice at the center of economic theory", to encourage "critical historical research", and to defend "the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive."
ReplyDeleteNow - this is NOT an institute that is interested in performing objective analysis of economics.
But that is what they do; they begin with a premise and use logic to see where it leads them. Note that it was this approach that pointed out that the housing bubble was a danger, argued that you can't create jobs by reverting to the printing press, that fiat currencies are doomed to keep losing purchasing power, etc. History has proven these conclusions right while it invalidated the conclusions that were drawn and the predictions made by other schools of thought.
And the argument I gave did not come from LvMI. It came from the actual data and history of the era.
On the other hand you have no data and no logical argument. You pull stuff out of your ass and argue that because you are ignorant and stupid you have to be objective even though everyone can see your statist bias.
Nichols and Yunker apparently disagreed on the applicable rule. In any case, as you have never answered the question, we can conclude that Yunker had no other recourse but the law.
ReplyDeleteSince when have I argued that disputes should not be settled in court or in arbitration? I think that you are trying to draw out points that I have not made.
The difference is that 1) Chevrolet is not a monopoly. 2) Chevrolet doesn't own Goodyear.
ReplyDeleteWhat difference? Microsoft is not a monopoly. Microsoft does not own the PC makers.
Nichols and Yunker apparently disagreed on the applicable rule. In any case, as you have never answered the question, we can conclude that Yunker had no other recourse but the law.
ReplyDeletethat is, in fact, what happened - and what happens when property owners do not agree.
it basically then looks for a 3rd party to resolve the issue and when you have a bunch of property owners agreeing on a vote as to who the 3rd party should be and the resolution process - THAT is a type of government.
If the area they live in has some sort of territorial govt - they often will seek that option because it's totally 3rd party AND it has a way to enforce the decision.
people gravitate toward government for the things it provides and this is one of them.
The book that Van reference does not explore the various different was that conflicts were resolved INCLUDING territorial courts - instead he was basically advocating for a non-govt solution.
It turns out that the Spanish controlled much of the US west and asserted jurisdiction over water rights.
That needs to be part of any purported history that one would write - instead of it being totally ignored as if it never existed.
these so-called "institutes" look for things that support their pre-ordained premises rather than objectively looking at all things that are involved with the issue - a "survey" of methods used.
ReplyDeleteinstead, they cherry-pick ONLY what they want to highlight and use to justify their already-decided position.
this is not academic nor scholarly... it's bogus to the bone.
VangelV: It is up to you to look at the original data and see what it shows.
ReplyDeleteIt's reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to scholarship. There's a difference between bias and fraud. Of course, unless there is a reasonable consensus in the field, just pointing to a paper is not a valid appeal to authority, and reasonably supported contrary opinions should be considered, especially when they have the support of most experts in a field.
In particular, even in the absence of law, people will attempt to structure themselves into workable social patterns. These systems are nearly always replaced by more formal systems once they reach a certain level of development. Indeed, there will be competition for control of the nascent government. The modern question, of course, is whether the people will have a say in government.
VangelV: Since when have I argued that disputes should not be settled in court or in arbitration?
Then we are in agreement.
re: scholarship
ReplyDeletefrom my perspective - scholarship should be a search for information -all information associated with an issue - to contrast and compare the differences.
at the END of the dissertation, in the conclusion, the "scholar" can then express some person views.
but he should not start out with the intent of limiting his investigation to ONLY those things that support his pre-conceived biases.
that's not scholarship in my view.
Larry G: instead, they cherry-pick ONLY what they want to highlight and use to justify their already-decided position.
ReplyDeleteSure. And therefore their conclusions might be suspect, even if their factual research is accurate. There's nothing wrong with attempting to carve out a niche within a field, though they should be careful to not claim more than they can show.
One might give the benefit of the doubt as to the research itself, but if the paper is drawing conclusions far afield from the general consensus in that field, then their research has to be much stronger than otherwise. Ultimately, they need to convince their peers, not like-minded laypersons. They have not succeeded thus far.
Larry G: but he should not start out with the intent of limiting his investigation to ONLY those things that support his pre-conceived biases.
That's right. You can't convince your colleagues if you don't answer their objections, or ignore a bulk of the evidence. It shows a weakness of one's position to do so. However, there's a lot of room for different thought—just as long as you don't confuse merely publishing a paper in a friendly think tank with having won a consensus within the field.
totally agree.
ReplyDeletein my book - scholarship is adding to the existing body of knowledge - not carving out some alternative position that is controversial or rejected by others.
there is a process.
it's not perfect by a long shot but what some are calling scholarship is basically just a position/advocacy paper - not truly a legitimate academic effort.
A legitimate academic effort acknowledges the other approaches, compares and contrasts the different approaches and acknowledges the benefits and disadvantages of all the different approaches.
What Van is references is pure advocacy for one position.
Z: "The difference is that 1) Chevrolet is not a monopoly. 2) Chevrolet doesn't own Goodyear."
ReplyDeleteWe can see that you're having trouble with this concept.
"Businesses have a right to compete on an equal basis. In the long run, competition is the driving force of innovation."
ReplyDeleteIs this some kind of "level the playing field" argument? Who decides when it's level?
In the real world there is no equal basis. The business with some combination of best products, prices and market strategy gets more market share because it benefits consumers.
Well intentioned but misguided applications of the blunt instrument of government force almost invariably harms consumers.
Would a broken up Microsoft have provided better prices or products to the benefit of consumers? We doubt it.
You should be aware that we are not a big Microsoft fan, and have never used IE on any regular basis, but all these other browser choices have been free. We have benefited form free browsers all thes years due to Microsoft's "unfair" actions. If microsoft had been forced to sell IE separately, all these other browsers would have cost us money also.
Microsoft has provided what 90% of computer users see as their best all around choice. You are arguing that they're wrong, and should haver been forced to shop differently to accomodate the preferences of a few.
We thought you *liked* majority rule? What's changed?
As we can see, Microsoft now faces serious threats in the mobile and wireless space, and that very lack of innovation and forsight you dislike may be the cause. Consumers win.
This is how markets work if left alone, without the help of misguided cosmic justice seekers attempting to level playing fields when those unable to compete scream "unfair!"
"what you have is a biased work not an objective examination of the issue."
ReplyDeleteOf course you can tell that without reading a single word of it.
You can quote articles written by the USFS and never question any of it. Do you think the forest service is an unbiased?
"We are the good guys" they proclaim, and Larry listens in wide-eyed wonder.
"this is yet another example of confirmation bias where people seek out only those things that support their position - not truly interested in an objective look at the issue - just confirmation of their own bias."
ReplyDeleteYou actually got that part right. You must be looking in a mirror.
Did you lose your "objective pragmatist" hat?
It's really funny that you accuse others of your own failings.
Ron H: We can see that you're having trouble with this concept.
ReplyDeleteApparently, you are having troubles with this because you provided an example that was not a monopoly and not vertically integrated.
Ron H: Is this some kind of "level the playing field" argument? Who decides when it's level?
Most developed countries have robust markets, but with restrictions on monopolies.
Ron H: The business with some combination of best products, prices and market strategy gets more market share because it benefits consumers.
Yes, if they compete on a equal basis, then the best product tends to win market share. That's what we mean by competing on an equal basis.
Ron H: Would a broken up Microsoft have provided better prices or products to the benefit of consumers? We doubt it.
Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using the monopoly power to force out new competition, or to use your monopoly power to acquire a monopoly in another product is.
"the guy has a pre-ordained agenda and the book becomes the supporting argument for his beliefs.
ReplyDeletethat's not scholarly at all."
He cites a lot of references, Larry, original material that you can check for yourself.
That's what scholars do. They say: "Don't just take my word for it, look here at the material I'm using to support my work."
You just won't look at or listen to anything that conflicts with your narrow world view, or acknowledge that there just might be other legitimate views. There is no "correct" view of history.
[PERC] "so he has a pre-ordained AGENDA against Govt...."
ReplyDeletePreordained? You think he was born that way?
He is an environmentalist who has concerns that some government actions may cause harm instead of good.
Why would you find that troublesome, unless you know it's absolutely not true? How exactly is that an agenda? Does everyone who questions the wisdom of government action have an agenda?
"Of course it was. An inferior product dominated the market for several years. "
ReplyDeleteAnd created opportunities for others to enter that market space as we can plainly see. That's how markets work, and how monopolies are their own undoing. No need for any interference by clueless outsiders.
You can quote articles written by the USFS and never question any of it. Do you think the forest service is an unbiased?
ReplyDeleteit's WAY MORE than just the FS guy and it's a verifiable historic record not some made up bogus biased crap from some idiot who who can't even admit what is the documented history.
It's called Confirmation Bias and it's rampant now with folks who just want to believe what they want to believe no matter the realities.
"but he should not start out with the intent of limiting his investigation to ONLY those things that support his pre-conceived biases."
ReplyDeleteDo you mean investigating the question of whether government involvement in land management has caused any harm isn't a valid subject of study?
Why then, would you accept something published by an obviously interested party, the USFS, as unbiased, when no references to original materials are even offered?
Do you have an agenda? An ideology that can't stand up to scrutiny?
"these so-called "institutes" look for things that support their pre-ordained premises rather than objectively looking at all things that are involved with the issue - a "survey" of methods used."
Do you mean like the Forest Service might present a view that justifies its existence and its actions?
Can you provide an example of the type of study you prefer, one that objectively looks at all things that are involved with the issue - a "survey" of methods used?
" Do you mean investigating the question of whether government involvement in land management has caused any harm isn't a valid subject of study?"
ReplyDeletenope.
It's the idea that you ignore what they did that was good and useful and what percent of their efforts constituted good and useful things even as they did screw up on others.
and the idea that non-govt "governance" among property owners actually "worked" overall "better" than govt efforts.
the idea that you start out with the premise that the govt is bad and non-govt approaches are always better and proceed to write books and papers along those lines - ignoring the documented history (like the degradation of forest lands at the hands of property owners) and proceed to paint the FS that took over that land and nursed it back to health - as incompetents who don't know what they are doing.
got it?
" Can you provide an example of the type of study you prefer, one that objectively looks at all things that are involved with the issue - a "survey" of methods used?"
ReplyDeletemost any study that is accepted by others in that field and accepted as a valid contribution into the body of knowledge that has been built by dozens,hundreds of other researchers.
Ron H: And created opportunities for others to enter that market space as we can plainly see.
ReplyDeleteWhat we plainly see is that innovation was set back several years by Microsoft's monopolistic practices. Look at it again:
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/ms-yahoo-art/ie-market-share.gif
Microsoft didn't acquire that market share because they had a superior product, but because they included it with their OS, which was a virtual monopoly. No one else could do that. It wasn't a level playing field.
"it's not perfect by a long shot but what some are calling scholarship is basically just a position/advocacy paper - not truly a legitimate academic effort."
ReplyDeleteAnd you can determine this because of your careful reading and evaluation of the publication in question? You wouldn't jump to a conclusion based on your superficial evaluation of the authors motives, would you? Didn't you just criticize others for you called preconceived conclusions?
well the history tells us how the Forest Service came to be in the first place.
ReplyDeleteproperty owners who abandoned their property.
where have you read that in the biased perspectives?
"Apparently, you are having troubles with this because you provided an example that was not a monopoly and not vertically integrated. "
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to fathom why this comparison is so difficult for you.
While Goodyear isn't a monopoly, it has exclusive agreements with auto manufacturers to use Goodyear tires on their cars, just as Microsoft has exclusive agreements with PC manufacturers and vendors to use Windows Operating systems and the integrated browser on PCs they manufacture and sell.
If auto buyers want different tires for some reason instead of the Goodyear tires that come on the car by default, they will most likely pay extra for the substitution.
For MOST people the Goodyear tires are perfectly adequate, and no thought is given to buying something else, especially since the default tire option is the least cost option.
In the IT and PC world Microsoft isn't vertically integrated. They make no hardware, and precious little application software other than office products. They are truly dominant in Operating Systems only.
What is your problem with this concept?
Keep in mind that consumers are the ultimate deciders of who wins and who loses in the market. In your view, there must be some government bureaucrats who know what's best for consumers.
re: hardware/software monopoly
ReplyDeleteApple?
Z: "That's right. You can't convince your colleagues if you don't answer their objections, or ignore a bulk of the evidence. It shows a weakness of one's position to do so. However, there's a lot of room for different thought—just as long as you don't confuse merely publishing a paper in a friendly think tank with having won a consensus within the field."
ReplyDeleteWe forgot. You believe that truth is decided by consensus, as it is in climate science. LOL
no..the truth is when you acknowledge the other things that are part of the issue and compare and contrast them with your preferred approach.
ReplyDeleterather than ignoring everything else and just supporting your own biased view.
and the people who get to decide if you are being fair and objective are others who have also contributed to the body of knowledge.
Biased people and their biased writings stand out like sore thumbs and people like you rely on these writings to confirm your own bias.
when what you seek out for the truth is only what conforms to your own bias - you're not really interested in the truth at all - you're interested is your own ideology and little more.
in other words, you're willingly disconnected with the realities preferring instead your own version of realities.
nutty.
"in my book - scholarship is adding to the existing body of knowledge - not carving out some alternative position that is controversial or rejected by others."
ReplyDeleteAll scholarship should assume the existing consensus is correct? There's no room for disagreement?
"It's called Confirmation Bias and it's rampant now with folks who just want to believe what they want to believe no matter the realities."
ReplyDeleteLOL
And that comes from the poster child for the Head In Ass society.
re: " All scholarship should assume the existing consensus is correct? There's no room for disagreement? "
ReplyDeleteNo. Consider it like Wiki where all sides have their ideas represented and if there is Controversy, it is acknowledge and then each sides version of the dispute is disclosed.
in other words you honestly acknowledge that your view is not uniformly accepted and is contested.
What the guys that Van references do is they construct their bias out of whole cloth - totally ignoring everything else that is part of the issue.
Ron H: While Goodyear isn't a monopoly,
ReplyDeleteNor is Chevrolet.
Ron H: You believe that truth is decided by consensus, as it is in climate science.
Not at all, but an appeal to authority is weakened when there is no general consensus in a field. So, for instance, there is a scientific consensus that the Earth is 4½ billion years old. We could all individually mount expeditions to find ancient minerals, build laboratories, rediscover the laws of the radiological sciences, and test it for ourselves. There is always some physicist somewhere who thinks the Earth is demonstrably only 6000 years old. But for most people, the consensus would be a valid appeal.
That doesn't make it 'true', but to rebute that consensus generally takes significant evidence.
Ron H: All scholarship should assume the existing consensus is correct?
Not at all. But scholars, even if they have a particular view, should try to account for all the available evidence, and the objections of their peers. But people are people. Sometimes new ideas and results come from unexpected places.
"and the idea that non-govt "governance" among property owners actually "worked" overall "better" than govt efforts."
ReplyDeleteYou might be better served by an improved understanding of the concepts of "government" and "governance", and how people have governed themselves and been governed throughout history.
That people have joined together throughout human history for their mutual benefit and protection and agreed on rules they believed best serve their interests and protected their rights is an indisputable fact, observable everywhere humans have lived.
Recognizing that there are bound to be differences and disputes that cannot be resolved by the parties involved, people have relied on trusted wise men, arbitrators, judges, tribunals, and courts to settle those disputes.
The problem begins when someone seizes power, or when people give up choice and liberty so that some authority has absolute control over them.
A government with a monopoly on the production of law, justice, and the use of force - the one you prefer - is by definition tyrannical, and can only grow larger and more tyrannical over time, as power corrupts. Those who are given the power to govern others will never give it up, and will only become more tyrannical. Whether absolute government is one tyrannical dictator or representatives elected by a majority of voters makes little difference. Tyranny is tyranny whether it comes all at once or slowly over time.
To expect otherwise is to deny human nature.
You seem to argue that people with power over others will only use it for the benefit of those others. A silly notion at best.
"No. Consider it like Wiki where all sides have their ideas represented and if there is Controversy, it is acknowledge and then each sides version of the dispute is disclosed."
ReplyDeleteThat's funny. Read wiki on any subject related to climate change to see how much impartial they are.
You might try to avoid either-or thinking involving sides.
" have relied on trusted wise men, arbitrators, judges, tribunals, and courts to settle those disputes."
ReplyDeleteas soon as you agree as a group to have a "collective" approach to rules and enforcement, you have govt.
you won't agree on an arbitrator that you donj't trust so you vote.
when you vote you are exercising fundamental government.
when you vote on people to perform roles like arbitration, you also have to decide how far their jurisdiction extends as it cannot extend beyond those who vote and are part of it.
people WELCOMED the territorial govt.. it brought FORTs and security and commerce, etc.
they PREFERRED it to local govt that had no such resources.
the "roll your own" local governance is what exists when there is nothing else.
it's the last resort - not the top of the line.
" That's funny. Read wiki on any subject related to climate change to see how much impartial they are.
ReplyDeleteYou might try to avoid either-or thinking involving sides. "
for the vast majority of subjects - they cover related things in an issue and they disclose when there is disagreement and controversy (even with climate change).
AND they have a rating system that can help readers understand how others feel about it.
It's not perfect but it's an honest effort to seek objectivity and reduce bias and subjectivity.
the stuff that you and Van reference is clearly one-sided and biased - to the point of ignoring other information, ignoring history or re-writing it and in general one-sided bias.
ya'll cite this crap like it's credible and it's garbage so then you sermon others to "read" and "understand".
comical.
"and the people who get to decide if you are being fair and objective are others who have also contributed to the body of knowledge."
ReplyDeleteThere's that consensus thing again.
Did your Forest Service article present all "sides" in an impartial manner?
"and the people who get to decide if you are being fair and objective are others who have also contributed to the body of knowledge."
ReplyDeleteThere's that consensus thing again.
guy.. "consensus" is NOT "contributing" to the body of knowledge.
there can be disputes but the disputes are open and acknowledge UNLIKE the TRIPE you seem to prefer.
Yes, the FS History has been validated by others - a LOT of others. Other, non-FS history abut the forests has been written and it confirms the FS version.
you seem to think that facts are consensus.
they are not.
when property owners abandon property and it reverts in ownership to the locality - and it gets reported in multiple writings, that's NOT consensus guy.
it's relating the SAME facts.
you're either badly confused here or you just live in your own little world with your own little rules.
"Nor is Chevrolet. "
ReplyDeleteNor are Dell, HP, Lenovo, or Toshiba. Was there a point?
"as soon as you agree as a group to have a "collective" approach to rules and enforcement, you have govt."
ReplyDeleteBut there's no collective approach necessary. You and I could agree that a mutual acquaintance was a wise and impartial judge, and agree to let him settle our dispute. Many others could also hold the same person in high regard.
"you won't agree on an arbitrator that you donj't trust so you vote.."
There's that consensus thing again! Who decides that voting is a good way to select a judge?
If I vote and my choice loses I'm stuck with a judge I don't know or trust.
"when you vote you are exercising fundamental government."
Nonsense. Majority rule is a relatively new concept.
"when you vote on people to perform roles like arbitration, you also have to decide how far their jurisdiction extends as it cannot extend beyond those who vote and are part of it."
Correct. Jurisdiction can't extend to me who didn't vote and am not part of it.
"people WELCOMED the territorial govt.. it brought FORTs and security and commerce, etc."
Stuff from ass.
"they PREFERRED it to local govt that had no such resources."
More stuff from ass.
"the "roll your own" local governance is what exists when there is nothing else."
All government is roll your own and begins locally.
""it's the last resort - not the top of the line."
More stuff from ass.
majority rule is a "new" concept?
ReplyDeletegeeze...
when more than two people agree on a set of rules - that's not collectivism?
what happens when some reject jurisdiction?
why of course the others vote to force them to accept it or get out...
there's that good old force of govt, eh?
re: stuff from ass
if the "voluntary" version of "agreeing" actually worked why did not survive?
let me guess... nasty govt ran it out of town...
people gravitate toward government for the things it provides and this is one of them.
ReplyDeleteNo. People gravitate towards social institutions that protect their rights. Government usually comes in and takes over those institutions. When the privatization process begins the courts and police should be the first things that should be bid out.
The book that Van reference does not explore the various different was that conflicts were resolved INCLUDING territorial courts - instead he was basically advocating for a non-govt solution.
Actually, in our previous debate on the issue I cited additional books, which are also referenced in the reference I provided above. The authors explain the process and how institutions developed long before the government had a presence.
"It's not perfect but it's an honest effort to seek objectivity and reduce bias and subjectivity."
ReplyDeleteLOL
You need to get out more.
these so-called "institutes" look for things that support their pre-ordained premises rather than objectively looking at all things that are involved with the issue - a "survey" of methods used.
ReplyDeleteinstead, they cherry-pick ONLY what they want to highlight and use to justify their already-decided position.
this is not academic nor scholarly... it's bogus to the bone.
Of course it is an academic and scholarly study. It uses real data and references established authors that used the original source material to describe what happened. The actual bias comes from historians like Michael Bellesiles, who wrote a book saying how uncommon guns used to be in the US in the 19th century even though the records and data show this was not true. He was even given highly prestigious Bancroft Prize but that was finally rescinded when scholars found huge errors and evidence of fraud.
The book I cited is not popular among the statists on the left and right. It has been examined very closely but has survived the scrutiny and no serious errors were found. This is to be expected because Americans used to be distrustful of the federal and state government and wanted to be left alone. And if you look at the data you will find that the federal government was very limited in what it could do by the tiny amount of revenue that it was permitted to collect. The collectivism that you worship changed things but that process did not really begin until the latter part of the 19th century and did not really take hold until FDR.
Here's a couple of Eastwood movies that show what life without govt often was like:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Rider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Plains_Drifter
There's no law west of Dodge and no God west of the Pecos
It's reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to scholarship. There's a difference between bias and fraud. Of course, unless there is a reasonable consensus in the field, just pointing to a paper is not a valid appeal to authority, and reasonably supported contrary opinions should be considered, especially when they have the support of most experts in a field.
ReplyDeleteThe facts are what they are and not determined by consensus. If you look at the Michael Bellesiles scandal you will find that many historians wanted to believe and were happy when he came up with his book. The book was celebrated and even got the extremely prestigious Bancroft Prize. While Bellesiles got a lot of support by those wanting to believe in the end the prize was rescinded because a review found massive fraud.
In the case that we are discussing the facts are very clear. When people moved beyond the frontier the created institutions that were required to keep order and protect property rights without any direction from any government. In fact, the records also show that many of the problems occurred after federal marshals were given monopoly power over the initiation of violence and were backed up by federal judges who cared more about power relationships than justice.
Then we are in agreement.
On that point we agree that when there is a dispute it should be settled by an independent third party that is acceptable to both sides.
Most developed countries have robust markets, but with restrictions on monopolies.
ReplyDeleteNo they don't. Most developed countries have managed markets that are stagnant and much weaker than they should be because government gets in the way to protect special interests from competition. And most of them have monopolies that are harmful to consumers protected by governments even as they attack large companies getting market share by getting consumers to purchase their products by offering choice, quality, and low prices.
Microsoft didn't acquire that market share because they had a superior product, but because they included it with their OS, which was a virtual monopoly. No one else could do that. It wasn't a level playing field.
ReplyDeleteThey gave the product away. They got their market share because they had a good product given away for free. They never stopped Netscape from developing its own OS or from selling to consumers. The fact is that it couldn't compete because it offered an inferior product at a higher cost.
when one property owner is benefiting at the expense of other property owners and they do not agree on a 3rd party because they want to maintain their superior position - then what?
ReplyDeletethat's why you have the law guy and following the law is not "voluntary".
for ever Marshall who "messed" things up, you'll find 10, 100, 1000 property owners who had absolutely no incentive to "settle" as they wanted to maintain the status quo - not have it changed.
The LAW...PROTECTS property owners from other unscrupulous property owners.
Your so-called unbiased "references" never seem to acknowledge this nor admit that in such cases - you need a law that is enforceable no matter the selfish interests of some property owners.
the reason these associations did not survive is that they did not have the force of law - to protect those from corrupt and unscrupulous predators who would never agree to a 3rd party decision in the first place.
No. Consider it like Wiki where all sides have their ideas represented and if there is Controversy, it is acknowledge and then each sides version of the dispute is disclosed.
ReplyDeletein other words you honestly acknowledge that your view is not uniformly accepted and is contested.
What the guys that Van references do is they construct their bias out of whole cloth - totally ignoring everything else that is part of the issue.
The facts are what they are, not what you want them to be. Everyone has a personal bias. But a good scholar lets logic and the data lead where they will. The nice thing about having much more access to information is that the role of the gatekeeper has been made far less important than it used to be. In the old days a bunch of historians would give each other prizes for agreeing with the general consensus. But when ordinary people can see that the consensus glosses over facts that dispute it the game has changed. We have seen great examples recently with the Lincoln scholars. After decades of creating myths they have finally admitted to some of the more troubling facts that falsify that mythology. It became difficult to argue that the President began a war to free slaves when his debates and inaugural address show that he was a racist who thought blacks were inferior and needed to be sent to Africa and when his actions were to free only a limited number of states in the South and only in those states that were on the side of the Confederacy.
"Yes, the FS History has been validated by others - a LOT of others. Other, non-FS history abut the forests has been written and it confirms the FS version."
ReplyDeleteLet's see it.