Poor Mexicans Heart Walmart

[Crux]

 

Thanks to the expediency of no-bid contracting, the Katrina mess is already cleaned up and problems in Iraq are solved. However, nothing could save Haliburton from bankrupcty nor put riches into the pockets of the Bush crime family -- contemporary "free markets" ensure that such corrupt, wasteful entities will not prevail at our expense.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2007 by Crux

[mattp]

My main point with respect to the great mass of nebulosities hitherto referred to as "externalities" in the context of price competition is not that such things are impossible in principle, but that those most directly affected by them should have the freedom to make decisions concerning them, rather than be prohibited from doing so by statute, much less by people who are infinitely better off, live thousands of miles away, and know next to nothing about their particular circumstances.

 

Jay, I guess your economic theory professor has never told you about the tragedy of the commons. Look it up some time. The very nature of many devastating free market "externalities" is that they are disperssed and less directly recognizable than any one consumer or voter can recognize.

 

The driver of an automobile or consumer of electricity has no way to observe their contribution to acid rain and global warming, but only scientists can figure out the relationship. The purchaser of an automobile, guided by your "poor Mexican" principal of seeking purchasing power above all else, will not likely vote in favor of emissions regulations that drive up the cost of purchase, and the consumer of electricity will not vote against coal plants for this reason either. In both cases, the industries have lobbyists deliberately preventing the flow of information back to the consumer/voter, but the impact of the technology remains clear. The only way anything will EVER be done about these technology impacts is if "smart people" "in power" "thousands of miles away" who are likely "infinitely beter off" than the poor Mexican or even middle class American driver or power consumer, and who know "nothing about an individual driver's "particular circumstances" can read and digest the information despite the efforts of industry lobbyists. Not only must these peoplle who you suggest have no right to intervene invest time and money to actively study the problem, they've got to then distribuite the information, take on GM or the Power Companies through a publicity campaign such as the WallMart effort that you find so distasteful, or maybe if they are elected representatives DO THEIR JOB and take action based upon a perception of the common good rathern than upon corporate earnings and election contributions.

 

I'm not a real Wallmart hater, though I'd have to say I've never even been inside one because I read bad things about the "externalities" and I wouldn't want to go somewhere that doesn't sell birkenstocks even though I don't wear them anymore. That and I don't go to the suburbs to do my shopping. In Seattle, we have Costco, Trader Joes, and Value Village. Rather than drive to Lynnwood, I bought some cheap undies at Ross Dress for Less the other day. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that there is something behind all the anti-Wallmart venom. There may be some distortion, too, but I bet they deserve their bad rap. And the fact that they can't directly debate some of the points brought up against them is why they engate in the "green" or "charitible" marketting campaigns once in a while rather than encourage real discussion of the economics of their business - with actual discussion of relevant factors including Prole's "externalities." Criticized by a vaguely similar armchair populist movement, even Microsoft has been a little more forthcoming about responding to allegations that they are anticompetitive, haven't they?

 

Gotta go do a bong hit, re-allign my crystals, and meditate now. Talk to you later.

[tvashtarkatena]

Do me a favor and fly to Mexico, stand in line next to the folks buying their bulk Tortilla's at Walmart, use your best harangue in an attempt to subsidize one of your pet externalities by paying above market rates for their Tortilla's - and film the result. [Jumping up and down] "But what about the externalities, Conseula!!!!! The externaaaaaaaaalities!!!!!!!..." The new content on Youtube's been lacking a bit lately, so this would make a welcome addition to the fare on offer there.

 

And here's where the fool trips over his own model.

 

I've spent more than a year traveling various Latin American countries. You, apparently, have not, otherwise you would know that food in the local markets is much, MUCH cheaper that that found in any supermarket. Furthermore, it is homemade from fresh ingredients that are locally grown. Ie, the money stays in the community.

 

The people in these countries that shop at big box grocery stores like Walmart do so because they can AFFORD THE CONVENIENCE of bulk packaging, processed foods, frozen meals, and preservatives, not because they can't afford to shop elsewhere. Your idiotic tortilla example, the basis for your entire argument here, really, is based on a your signature ignorance of the 'externalities' on the ground.

 

And, like any good intellectual elitist, you will apply your model, ignoring realities even a casual tourist would realize within a couple days of an in country visit, until the very end because, in your own mind, YOU KNOW YOU MUST BE RIGHT. But you don't need any models, graphs, or tear jerking real life examples to best the intellectual elitists of the world. You'll find one staring right back at you in any mirror.

 

Cough.

 

"In recent months, as rising prices for U.S. corn pushed up the price of Mexico's corn tortilla, a staple for millions of poor, Wal-Mart could keep tortilla prices largely steady because of its long-term contracts with corn-flour suppliers. The crisis turned into free advertising for Wal-Mart, as new shoppers lined up for the cheaper tortillas.

 

 

Here's what's behind your cheap American corn, Free Market Boy; US government subsidies.

 

Just how many more times would you like me to step all over your dick in front of a live audience?

 

How the US can export corn to Mexico, a corn producing nation

 

This may indeed be the most devastating rebuttal to an argument that I never put forth that I have ever encountered. I am a bit surprised and disappointed that, in the spirit of the above contribution, you neglected to point out that the sky is not green, and that two plus two does not, in fact, equal five.

 

There are a couple of aspects about this post that I find especially amusing, especially in light of the manner in which it was put forth. The first is that it is not the cheapness, but rather the expense of corn, that is of concern to the poorest Mexicans at the moment. If I had ever argued in favor of subsidies, much less argued that agricultural subsidies were both beneficial and had the tendency to drive up, rather than depress the prices for agricultural products on the world market, and the primary concern amongst poor people in Mexico was that corn had become too cheap on account market distortions produced by American agricultural subsidies, and they were at the moment at a loss as to what to do with the surfeit of tortillas this depression in the price of corn had brought about - then the irrelevant-factoid-unescorted-by-an-argument that you brought in from the beyond might suffice to serve as a passable rebuttal. In the absence of any such claims on my part, it's the logical equivalent of an outburst from someone suffering from Tourette's syndrome. [silence] "CORN SUBSIDIES!!"

 

However, the primary problem with corn prices in Mexico at the moment is that they are have been rising, rather than declining. In the absence of market distorting subsidies that divert corn away from incorporation into foodstuffs like tortillas, and into ethanol production, no such spike in prices would have occurred, because tropical countries can produce ethanol from sugarcane at a real price that's significantly lower than ethanol produced from corn grow in the US, and corn that would otherwise wind up on people's tables has been diverted into ethanol on a scale that would be inconceivable in the absence of the incentives provided by the subsidies and tariffs.

 

With respect to Walmart, I'm left asking...and? Your comments suggest that you believe that if the US eliminated its subsidies for corn production, that this would eliminate both Walmart's competitive position relative to local retailers, and the advantages that the said position provides to consumers in markets that had hitherto been characterized by an absence of price competition brought about by government barriers to the same. If the majority of Walmart's products were made from subsidized American corn, and it were competing with retailers who also offered products composed entirely of corn produced in the absence of any market distortions, your rejoinder would be devastating indeed. Since this is clearly not the case, why you thought the mere mention of corn subsidies constituted a salient point, let alone a counterargument, is something that I eagerly anticipate watching you attempt to explain - at length.

 

Step away, amigo.

 

 

Yet again, CC's favorite weasel wiggles out from under his initial thesis.

[Peter_Puget]

Jay, I guess your economic theory professor has never told you about the tragedy of the commons. Look it up some time. The very nature of many devastating free market "externalities" is that they are disperssed and less directly recognizable than any one consumer or voter can recognize.

 

I have always thought the Tragedy of the Commons was a very poor example of externalities. For the most part it can be avoided through the proper delineation of property rights. A better example would be how my neighbor maintains his/her property. If they the put a lot of effort and money into their property their work would increase my property value. Of course if they parked old cars and washing machines in their front yard my property’s value would decrease. Land owners have often banded together and created “private rules and regulations” to limit this. For example, an area with Sound views may prohibit large trees. Coase’s Teorem formulated well before the Tragedy of the Commons article was developed out analyzing grazing practices essentially states that the externalities disappear with well define property rights regardless of the initial allocation of resources. (the usual caveats apply) so to the extent government (& attorneys too) increase transaction costs they also can have the perverse effect of increasing externalities. “Externalities are not anything unique to “Free Market” and free markets may tend to minimize their impact.

 

The driver of an automobile or consumer of electricity has no way to observe their contribution to acid rain and global warming, but only scientists can figure out the relationship. The purchaser of an automobile, guided by your "poor Mexican" principal of seeking purchasing power above all else, will not likely vote in favor of emissions regulations that drive up the cost of purchase, and the consumer of electricity will not vote against coal plants for this reason either. In both cases, the industries have lobbyists deliberately preventing the flow of information back to the consumer/voter, but the impact of the technology remains clear. The only way anything will EVER be done about these technology impacts is if "smart people" "in power" "thousands of miles away" who are likely "infinitely beter off" than the poor Mexican or even middle class American driver or power consumer, and who know "nothing about an individual driver's "particular circumstances" can read and digest the information despite the efforts of industry lobbyists. Not only must these peoplle who you suggest have no right to intervene invest time and money to actively study the problem, they've got to then distribuite the information, take on GM or the Power Companies through a publicity campaign such as the WallMart effort that you find so distasteful, or maybe if they are elected representatives DO THEIR JOB and take action based upon a perception of the common good rather than upon corporate earnings and election contributions.

 

In your first sentence you come very close to discovering a real truth but then you descend into something close to being a NAZI. By that I mean national socialist. Have the world controlled by institutions – an unholy alliance of corporate institutions mediated by an intellectual/political elite. Scary stuff there Matt.

 

[Crux]

MattP,

 

I went to a Walmart once, and I must say you seem to be overlooking the real value of Walmart. Although it's true that good socks and underwear can be found for cheap prices in Seattle, Walmart cannot be beat when it comes to low prices on jelly donuts and pickles.

 

Now, when I went to Walmart, I didn't buy any of the boxes of jelly donuts (nor did I have a desire for two-gallon jars of pickles), but I did buy a half dozen pairs of inexpensive socks. That said, I must add the socks greately helped to reduced variable costs directly associated with doing my laundry as the socks disintegrated almost immediately when I wore them, and therefore required no laundrying. This may go way over your head, but this means I didn't have to buy any laundry detergent for these socks! Do the math sucka!

 

Now, about the jelly donuts. You and I can probably agree that five dozen jelly donuts, eaten repeatedly on a daily basis, will lead to obesity and that in turn, for many individuals, will lead to severe medical problems. But I think it hypocritical for you liberals to be saying it's OK for you to put some cream in your fancy-dancy lattes at the corner coffee shop, but insist it's not OK for Pedro's mom to pack away another pile of lemon-creme-filled partially hydrogenated pastries. It's simply none of your business. You in your big house are as bad as Al Gore!

 

By the way, I had an economics professor who talked like JayB all the time. Micro, macro, and so forth. You should be so lucky to be so well informed. You are so ignorant. I'm just trying to help.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I tried to go to Walmart once, but you have to be 300 lbs or better to trigger the automatic door opener.

[mattp]

Peter. I would certainly agree that externalities are not exclusive to free market economies. That is blatantly obvious from my above-cited examples of the personal automobile or coal-fueled power generation. China is one of the worst examples of this. SO here you state the obvious and rebut some claim I never made.

 

For your second trick, .. well what is your second trick? You mention two sentences but highlight three. I think you don’t like my suggestion that remote people with time and money to study issues may be more likely to identify externalities than Joe blow consumer ... or is it the idea that government intervention might be needed to encourage automobile makers or coal-fired power utilities to clean up their act? I certainly didn’t suggest any alliance of corporate control with governmental regulation, as you claim I did. But I guess if not a Nazi you’d find some other cute name for me anyway because we all know that you think government regulation is anathema. But just how do you think cars would ever have gotten seatbelts or emission standards without groups of experts waging campaigns and getting the attention of government representatives who DID THEIR JOB?

[tvashtarkatena]

But just how do you think cars would ever have gotten seatbelts or emission standards without groups of experts waging campaigns and getting the attention of government representatives who DID THEIR JOB?

 

Seatbelts, emission standards...and roads.

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

Peter. I would certainly agree that externalities are not exclusive to free market economies. That is blatantly obvious from my above-cited examples of the personal automobile or coal-fueled power generation. China is one of the worst examples of this. SO here you state the obvious and rebut some claim I never made.

 

I was suggesting that “externalities” appear everywhere even in areas most would describe as completely non-market related. I then directly addressed the idea you brought forward of the “Tragedy of the Commons.” Coase’s Theorem directly relates to this concept. It suggests that in a perfect market externalities disappear if property rights are properly delineated – regardless of their initial allocation. I mention how imperfections (eg transaction costs) tend to limit the process described by the theorem. I them suggested that government control by increasing these costs would have the effect of increasing externalities compared to if the costs were reduced. (and everything else held equal) I am not sure what you think I thought I was rebutting. Obviously you missed the main point I was making.

 

 

 

For your second trick, .. well what is your second trick? You mention two sentences but highlight three. I think you don’t like my suggestion that remote people with time and money to study issues may be more likely to identify externalities than Joe blow consumer ... or is it the idea that government intervention might be needed to encourage automobile makers or coal-fired power utilities to clean up their act? I certainly didn’t suggest any alliance of corporate control with governmental regulation, as you claim I did. But I guess if not a Nazi you’d find some other cute name for me anyway because we all know that you think government regulation is anathema. But just how do you think cars would ever have gotten seatbelts or emission standards without groups of experts waging campaigns and getting the attention of government representatives who DID THEIR JOB?

 

Matt let’s examine the parts of your post I bolded:

 

 

your "poor Mexican" principal of seeking purchasing power above all else, will not likely vote in favor of emissions regulations that drive up the cost of purchase, and the consumer of electricity will not vote against coal plants for this reason either

 

You are clearly saying that consumers will be short sighted and make decisions that they would not make if they knew something that some elite knows. At some level that is true: as information improves so do decisions; however, I think you are saying something more.

 

The only way anything will EVER be done about these technology impacts is if "smart people" "in power" "thousands of miles away" who are likely "infinitely beter off" than the poor Mexican or even middle class American driver or power consumer, and who know "nothing about an individual driver's "particular circumstances" can read and digest the information despite the efforts of industry lobbyists.

 

Here you go=> the only way for things to improve is if some “mandarin” class can somehow get to the information revealed by a group of “intellectuals” whose work is being suppressed by the evil capitalist.

 

maybe if they are elected representatives DO THEIR JOB and take action based upon a perception of the common good rather than upon corporate earnings and election contributions.

 

Now you suggest that those throwing the levers of power in government should take action based upon the common good as defined by the “Mandarin” and “intellectual” classes. The popular vote can’t even be considered because the masses are confused by election advertising!

 

So why is this NAZI like? Well I will let you work this one out. But believe me you are not very far away…..

 

 

[mattp]

Peter, I think we’re going in the wrong direction here. You are knocking down straw men I can’t even see, but they appear to be located further and further from what we were talking about and your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.

 

Coase’s Theorem? Whatever. I’m sure you can refer me to volumes of great stuff to read about this and I have been having trouble sleeping lately so maybe it would help. But what are you really saying here: if Prole’s alleged “externalities” were definable somebody could design a complex set of property rights in some kind of matrix that would result in all these factors going away at minimal cost? Who would do this if it were not a team of your Nazi guys who don’t care what “the people” think? Or are you suggesting that there be a Mexican national election on whether or not to set up Coase’s Theorem trading credits, and there is a checklist of 800 potential credits and offsets based upon a proposed 12,000 page field manual written by “the committee” and the voters can vote up or down on each of these potential credits and offsets?

 

And what is this mandarin dialect you are speaking? I can‘t really follow your logic all the way through, but you seem to be saying there is something wrong with folks studying issues, formulating recommendations, promoting those recommendations through some kind of political process, and having elected representatives set policy or legislation based on information rather than bribe and direct personal gain. If that is NAZI like, I’ll take the Nazi method over your Ayn Rand method any day.

 

I believe in our political system, at least to a large extent, and I think it is OK that people who care about an issue work to influence regulations and public policy. I'll seek to elect representatives who say they want to clean up our environment or who don't think America should be known as the biggest bully in the world and expect them to vote for laws that will curb emissions or toxic waste or to vote against the next war powers authorization when some cowboy clearly has a hard on for the biggest pile of crap we could possibly dive into. I'd rather do this than to place my trust in some hair-brained scheme of credits that nobody but an ecoomics professor with a supercomputer can ever hope to understand -- and by the time Mr. Labcoat figures out how to correct an error in the initial allotment calculations we could have replaced the EPA leadership ten times already or voted the cowboy out of office.

 

Oh, and where in a single one of my posts did you see I ever said that "the popular vote can't even be considered?"

[Peter_Puget]

Peter, I think we’re going in the wrong direction here. You are knocking down straw men I can’t even see, but they appear to be located further and further from what we were talking about and your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.

 

Coase’s Theorem? Whatever. I’m sure you can refer me to volumes of great stuff to read about this and I have been having trouble sleeping lately so maybe it would help. But what are you really saying here: if Prole’s alleged “externalities” were definable somebody could design a complex set of property rights in some kind of matrix that would result in all these factors going away at minimal cost? Who would do this if it were not a team of your Nazi guys who don’t care what “the people” think? Or are you suggesting that there be a Mexican national election on whether or not to set up Coase’s Theorem trading credits, and there is a checklist of 800 potential credits and offsets based upon a proposed 12,000 page field manual written by “the committee” and the voters can vote up or down on each of these potential credits and offsets?

 

Now Matt no straw men and a rather direct statement of belief. You brougth up "Tragedy of the Commons" and my reply was directly reated to that subject. For grins I just ran a Google search on Tragedy of the Commons and in the first link shown guess what? Coase is mentioned. How odd that you tell Jayb in a smart ass manner to look up Tragedy of the Commons and then ridicule me for bringing up Coase. Pretty lame.

 

And what is this mandarin dialect you are speaking? I can‘t really follow your logic all the way through, but you seem to be saying there is something wrong with folks studying issues, formulating recommendations, promoting those recommendations through some kind of political process, and having elected representatives set policy or legislation based on information rather than bribe and direct personal gain. If that is NAZI like, I’ll take the Nazi method over your Ayn Rand method any day.

 

I am sure you are aware I was using the term Mandarin in this sense.

 

[

Oh, and where in a single one of my posts did you see I ever said that "the popular vote can't even be considered?"

Actually Matt what I said was this => "The popular vote can’t even be considered because the masses are confused by election advertising!" I never said that was a quote from you; however, it is an obvious conclusion from your writing.

 

You did write this:

maybe if they are elected representatives DO THEIR JOB and take action based upon a perception of the common good rather than upon corporate earnings and election contributions.

 

In Matt's world the voters decieved by lobbyists and political parties vote into office representatives to govern according to certain values. These representatives should then listen to the mandarins and in favor of the common good do as they instruct. After all it's all for the public good, the masses have been deceived! The know not what they do.

 

A scientist may make a direct connection between cars and global warming that everyone accepts as fact. That is the easy part. The hard part is deciding what to do about it. Billions of people with billions of values. Markets are designed for this kind of work.

 

As a sidebar I would note that I have never been a fan of Rand.

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

Peter, I think we’re going in the wrong direction here. You are knocking down straw men I can’t even see, but they appear to be located further and further from what we were talking about and your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.

 

Coase’s Theorem? Whatever. I’m sure you can refer me to volumes of great stuff to read about this and I have been having trouble sleeping lately so maybe it would help. But what are you really saying here: if Prole’s alleged “externalities” were definable somebody could design a complex set of property rights in some kind of matrix that would result in all these factors going away at minimal cost? Who would do this if it were not a team of your Nazi guys who don’t care what “the people” think? Or are you suggesting that there be a Mexican national election on whether or not to set up Coase’s Theorem trading credits, and there is a checklist of 800 potential credits and offsets based upon a proposed 12,000 page field manual written by “the committee” and the voters can vote up or down on each of these potential credits and offsets?

 

Now Matt no straw men and a rather direct statement of belief. You were the one who mentioned "Tragedy of the Commons" and my reply was directly related to that subject. For grins I just now ran a Google search on Tragedy of the Commons and in the first link shown guess what? Coase is mentioned. How odd that you tell Jayb in a smart ass manner to look up Tragedy of the Commons and then ridicule me for bringing up Coase. Pretty lame. If you have a second please show me the straw men I erected and beat down.

 

And what is this mandarin dialect you are speaking? I can‘t really follow your logic all the way through, but you seem to be saying there is something wrong with folks studying issues, formulating recommendations, promoting those recommendations through some kind of political process, and having elected representatives set policy or legislation based on information rather than bribe and direct personal gain. If that is NAZI like, I’ll take the Nazi method over your Ayn Rand method any day.

 

I am sure you are aware I was using the term Mandarin in this sense. It was also a reference to your buddy Chomsky. I still find the reference funny. Since you didn't get it here is a quote from Wikpedia:

American Power and the New Mandarins is a book by the US academic Noam Chomsky.

 

He develops the arguments laid out in The Responsibility of Intellectuals that the American intellectual and technical class, in Universities and in government (the New Mandarins) bear major responsibility for the atrocities perpetrated by the United States in Vietnam.

 

Oh, and where in a single one of my posts did you see I ever said that "the popular vote can't even be considered?"

Actually Matt what I said was this => "The popular vote can’t even be considered because the masses are confused by election advertising!" I never said that was a quote from you; however, it is an obvious conclusion from your writing.

 

You did write this:

maybe if they are elected representatives DO THEIR JOB and take action based upon a perception of the common good rather than upon corporate earnings and election contributions.

 

In Matt's world the voters decieved by lobbyists and political parties vote into office representatives to govern according to certain values. These representatives should then listen to the mandarins and in favor of the common good do as they instruct. After all it's all for the public good, the masses have been deceived! The know not what they do.

 

A scientist may make a direct connection between cars and global warming that everyone accepts as fact. That is the easy part. The hard part is deciding what to do about it. Billions of people with billions of values. Markets are well suted for this kind of work.

 

As a sidebar I would note that I have never been a fan of Rand.

 

 

[mattp]

Peter: you make my head hurt!

 

I wasn't talking about Szechwan Chicken or Tandouri Duck - I was describing one aspect of the manner in which a great deal of social policy takes shape whether the remote nazi's are the Sierra Club or your favorite free-market think tank. My point was that JayB's criticisms of the birkenstock crowd's efforts to bring attention to the evils of WallMart is founded at least as much and probably more so in the fact that he has set up a cast of cartoon characaters and has disdain for their values and conclusions as it is with the fact that they don't live in small town Mexico or whatever.

 

My problem with your harping on Coases' Theorem is that it adds way too little to this discussion to merit our dwelling upon in for 2000 words. I know that we've tried market trading of "credits" as one means to address pollution or the utilization of airspace above buildings, but such efforts have been relatively few and their applications have come where we had a great deal of information and undertook a bunch of planning and discussion in setting these systems up. Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't Coases' theorem useful here only to the extent that it makes a rhetorical point for you? Surely you are not suggesting thse kinds of credits be employed as the exclusive, or even a primary method, for setting public policy? Whatever they may be, you're not arguing that we could identify every specific beneficiary/victim or calculate the cost basis of all WallMart's "faults" and "ill effects" -- or are you?

 

Your complaits about the Peking duck are just more of JayB's stabs at birkenstocks. You love to come out with the latest study from the Enterprise Institute or wherever - if I recall correctly you even once posted a link to Drudge or somebody who proved that Iraq attacked us on 911. And you constantly suggest we should discuss these important findings. I can only assume you would want policymakers in Washington DC to consider these same souces or why are we talking about them here? So which is it: can people study issues and present ideas about public policy without being Nazis? Yes or no?

[JayB]

Hey Matt:

 

Did you ever catch "The Commanding Heights" series on PBS? The entire thing is available online here:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

 

 

[mattp]

From the add, it looks as if that would be worth sitting down with some popcorn. Freemarketman is going to save the world!

[Peter_Puget]

Matt - You crack me up. I was hardly harping on anything merely replying to your criticisms. If repsonding to your points is harping well then I am guilty.

 

And here i am harping again:

You are knocking down straw men I can’t even see, but they appear to be located further and further from what we were talking about and your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.

 

You said the above and I replied:

Now Matt no straw men and a rather direct statement of belief. You were the one who mentioned "Tragedy of the Commons" and my reply was directly related to that subject. For grins I just now ran a Google search on Tragedy of the Commons and in the first link shown guess what? Coase is mentioned. How odd that you tell Jayb in a smart ass manner to look up Tragedy of the Commons and then ridicule me for bringing up Coase. Pretty lame. If you have a second please show me the straw men I erected and beat down.

 

Again I ask you to please show me the straw men I have created.

 

Cheers,

 

PP

 

[Peter_Puget]

Matt - You crack me up. I was hardly harping on anything merely replying to your criticisms. If repsonding to your points is harping well then I am guilty.

 

And here i am harping again:

You are knocking down straw men I can’t even see, but they appear to be located further and further from what we were talking about and your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.

 

You said the above and I replied:

Now Matt no straw men and a rather direct statement of belief. You were the one who mentioned "Tragedy of the Commons" and my reply was directly related to that subject. For grins I just now ran a Google search on Tragedy of the Commons and in the first link shown guess what? Coase is mentioned. How odd that you tell Jayb in a smart ass manner to look up Tragedy of the Commons and then ridicule me for bringing up Coase. Pretty lame. If you have a second please show me the straw men I erected and beat down.

 

Again I ask you to please show me the straw men I have knocking down.

 

Cheers,

 

PP

 

Edited March 10, 2007 by Peter_Puget

[JayB]

"From the add, it looks as if that would be worth sitting down with some popcorn. Freemarketman is going to save the world!"

 

It's really just an economic history of the 20th century, and provides an overview of the principal figures/philosophies that actuated policy, and the social contexts within which they derived their popular support and appeal, brought to you by the same public television station that produces Frontline and NOVA.

Consequently, your response is unwarranted, but interesting all the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

My problem with your harping on Coases' Theorem is that it adds way too little to this discussion to merit our dwelling upon in for 2000 words.

 

From Wikpedia again:

 

Coase [was awarded] the 1991 Nobel Prize in Economics. The Coase theorem is an important basis for most modern economic analyses of government regulation, especially in the case of externalities.

 

 

I have not even mentioned “credits” but have mentioned the need to bring cost down in order to improve market efficiency.

 

I have claimed that the market is the best mechanism for allocating resources given the billions of differing valuations in the world.

 

I have brought up several examples of intellectual failure in the world.

 

Namely:

 

The ossification of chinese beauracracy (Mandarins)

 

Chomsky’s critique of the intellectual class in the Vietnam war.

 

I think I have been on point and consistant.

 

Whatever they may be, you're not arguing that we could identify every specific beneficiary/victim or calculate the cost basis of all WallMart's "faults" and "ill effects" -- or are you?

 

I think "we" cannot make these calculations but the best place for them to be made is in the market.

 

As far as Walmart goes there is no rational debate - Walmart is a good thing and its positive externalies dwarf the negative. Here is a site I use to read while it was active. Lots of good info there.

 

Chatter on...

[AlpineK]

I'm not up for a long intelectual debate like all of you fellows are. I did see this one comment that PP had.

 

A scientist may make a direct connection between cars and global warming that everyone accepts as fact. That is the easy part. The hard part is deciding what to do about it. Billions of people with billions of values.

 

In my view this is the crux of the issue we face. Sure some people want to debate the whole Global Warming thing, but the majority of writing on the subject by many sides admit that we are a bit part of the cause. The real debate is what do we do about the problem. I don't think there is one right answer, but we as a people should address the issue.

 

It seems to me that there have been a number of other vehicle issues that we have tackled. To the best of my knoledge it was the federal government that demanded seat belts and air bags. The car companies initially were against it. As things stand right now the requirements don't hurt the car companies. I figure it may be up to us or the government to deal with issues around the subject. The car companies are slowly moving in the right direction, but a little push wouldn't hurt. In the end car companies will still make loads of money even if they are forced to push faster at some things.

 

Anyway please continue fighting

[JayB]

Also worth considering the role of insurance companies in studying and promoting technologies associate with vehicle safety, in addition to that of the government. The insurance companies, acting through motives that were unquestionably and entirely motivated by their own self interest - investigated, quantified, and lobbied extensively for the adoption of just about every safety technology that we credit for reducing mortality and saving lives - all so that they would have to pay fewer claims and consequently, make more money. It would be silly to dispute the government's role in promoting vehicle safety, but it would be just as incorrect to conclude that the government was the sole inspiration and force behind these measures.

 

[mattp]

Hey Peter: remember way back about three posts ago when you came up with this madarin class of intellectuals issuing decrees from on high or whatever it was? Did I say anything about that? Even close? Nope. Remember your wandering paragraph about Coase's theorem (the point of which I'm still unclear about, by the way), concluding that "you know - externalities are not unique to free markets" or whatever it was? Did I ever say externalities were a biproduct of a specific economic system such as capitalism? Nope (they are a biproduct of economic activity, though, are they not?).

 

I'm calling these straw men, but I suppose you could spit hairs and call them something else -- what used to be your favorite term - a "canard." By whatever label, you are arguing against points I had not made.

 

Now you're getting all huffy because you believe I returned argument in the same fashion. Sorry, but I re-read some of it three times and I honestly cannot follow some of what you've posted. And when I ask for clarification, you step aside and reply to yet some other point.

 

Again: What is the significance of Coases' theorem if it is not somehow related to the idea that if we could only define the market rights and arrange for Prole's externalities to have assigned values or at least labels so they could be given values through "free trade?" And also again: wouldn't this involve market planning, and a close working between government and industry, that you've said is Nazi material? How does this wonderful economic analysis of yours move the ball forward when we are talking about whether or not Wallmart will be good for Mexico?

 

[Peter_Puget]

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

From wikipedia

 

 

Hey Peter: remember way back about three posts ago when you came up with this madarin class of intellectuals issuing decrees from on high or whatever it was? Did I say anything about that? Even close? Nope.

 

 

Matt – The mandarin class is your class of intellectuals and civil servants. This is not a unusual use of the term mandarin. (eg Chomsky’s book title) In your speak it is the EPA making decisions and recommendations to our elected representatives. As a practical matter the mandarins do in fact often issue decrees called “administrative rules.” You did mention the EPA in this very thread!

 

 

Remember your wandering paragraph about Coase's theorem (the point of which I'm still unclear about, by the way), concluding that "you know - externalities are not unique to free markets" or whatever it was? Did I ever say externalities were a biproduct of a specific economic system such as capitalism? Nope (they are a biproduct of economic activity, though, are they not?).

 

What I wrote: “Externalities are not anything unique to “Free Market” and free markets may tend to minimize their impact.

 

I am no way misrepresenting your position here. What I am doing is stating mine. Externalities are a bi-product of almost all human action and markets can act to minimize any negative impacts. Interference in markets, no matter how well intentioned, may actually increase negative externalities. To consider this misrepresenting your position is just silliness on your part. I am not arguing against anything here but for a different position altogether. Coase’s theorem provides support for this belief and indicates that transaction cost are important. I say government should in general try to minimize these costs and let markets sort out the issues.

 

 

I'm calling these straw men, but I suppose you could spit hairs and call them something else -- what used to be your favorite term - a "canard." By whatever label, you are arguing against points I had not made.

 

See above. Again you are simply wrong.

 

 

 

Now you're getting all huffy because you believe I returned argument in the same fashion. Sorry, but I re-read some of it three times and I honestly cannot follow some of what you've posted. And when I ask for clarification, you step aside and reply to yet some other point.

 

(I just wanted your examples of straw man arguments)

 

Again: What is the significance of Coases' theorem if it is not somehow related to the idea that if we could only define the market rights and arrange for Prole's externalities to have assigned values or at least labels so they could be given values through "free trade?" And also again: wouldn't this involve market planning, and a close working between government and industry, that you've said is Nazi material? How does this wonderful economic analysis of yours move the ball forward when we are talking about whether or not Wallmart will be good for Mexico?

 

 

In short it suggests that the cure maybe worse than the disease. I think this is stated in my first post where I write : to the extent government (& attorneys too) increase transaction costs they also can have the perverse effect of increasing externalities. I should have been more clear and stated negative externalities. I am not against all goverment activity but do believe that things like government (international) pollution credit markets have the potential to be a major disaster.

 

By the way one “l” in Walmart.

 

One analysis that is completely missing in your posts is why we don’t have your system in place right now. Our current state, per Matt, is short sighted voters deceived by the moneyed class and dishonest politicians making decisions based on their own need for money. The fact that there is no reason to think things will change anytime soon provides more support for my goal of limited government interference.

 

[mattp]

Our current state, per Matt, is short sighted voters deceived by the moneyed class and dishonest politicians making decisions based on their own need for money.

 

Now here's something I almost actually would agree with, though it is not exactly the way I put it. How else do you explain anybody but a millionaire who has lots invested in oil ever having voted for Bush?

 

And thanks for finally explaining what the mandarim class and Coase's theorem have to do with what I wrote. However, you still seem to misunderstand: I did not there nor anywhere else have I stated that the only way externalities are going to be taken into account is if intellectuals and civil servants work together to do something good for "the people." I DID say that understanding the cause and mechanisms of acid rain, or the safety benefits of seat belts, came about through the work of "experts" or something like that, and that government intervention was required or I don't think any corrective action would have been taken. I believe this is true. (Do you disagree?)

 

I suggested it could similarly be true that the impacts of Walmart are not visible to the casual observer, either, and it may also be that just as the oil companies, auto manufacturers, power companies, etc. have done in the past, those evil Walmart perpetrators may actually be trying to hide real externalities. I also said that, if JAYB's consumer cared only about price the way he asserted they did, they might not look at externalities even if they were about to bite them in the face.

 

I did not say the combined efforts of intellectuals and bureaucrats is the only basis for public policy changes -- in fact I would argue quite the contrary. For example, consumer boycotts have been effective in more than one instance. Political campaigns that involve little active input from either intellectuals or bureaucrats have been effective in other areas.

 

Lastly, while I agree with you that it looks as if nobody in power wants to change the fact that we have a bunch of short sighted voters deceived by the moneyed class and dishonest politicians making decisions based on their own need for money, this doesn't mean to me that we should not try to bring about a change.

 

I'm hungry for some curried tofu now - what about you?

[Crux]

 

PP, your writing, as clean as it is, nevertheless presents all the class of shit smeared on an outhouse wall. Did you work at your editorial skills or do they just come naturally, you know, sort of like a big dump of corn-filled crap after a Saturday night fish fry? (God all fucking mighty, somebody please, the ignore button, where is it?)