Presumably people with downs syndrome are in fact perfectly clever, they just “refuse to smarten up”. What about animals? are they all “refusing to smarten up” too?
You may be making a perfectly valid point… but I don’t understand it. Can you re-phrase that for me,
Sorry, Mick.
OK, could you explain how either example is even remotely relevant to what I said? If they “refuse” to smarten up, sucks to be them. As for animals, who cares? When did they enter the discussion? Talk about pointless…
Me too, Jon probably doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. Neither did Rothbard when it comes to this subject, but, that’s OK.
You implied that if the government does not screen the authenticity of your purchases, then you yourself will need to screen the authenticity of your purchases. However, that is ridiculous. If the government does not construct your house, then do you need to construct your own house? No. You can hire a non-governmental house constructor.
Then answer my question to him.
What you said was that less intelligent people need to “smarten up”. I’d like to suggest that this is not necessarily possible. I suggest that many people are not very clever because of biology/genetics. If people with poorly designed brains could make themselves cleverer by “smartening up” then presumably this could apply to monkeys or dogs, they have brains too. I would suggest that their brains are inherently incapable of understanding credit card contracts. But inadequate biology appears to be no barrier in your world.
I was speaking about the other Jon, the one who thinks that because I stated the utility is subjective I am somehow trying to disprove praxeology (how one can disprove a science, I’m not sure).
You see, you did this little thing where you conflated “less intelligent” with having Downs syndrome or similar conditions. So please, try bring up a relevant counter-example rather than relying on extreme cases.
I would suggest many of them are dumbed down by government schooling.
Funny, animals can’t learn from experience, how did this escape my notice… oh wait, they can! Now, how about you demonstrate less intelligent individuals are “inherently” incapable of understanding credit card contracts (which animals are not, granted) and that learning is not a remedy to entering raw deals? And by “less intelligent” please don’t think I mean severely retarded or plagued by other mental conditions…
I’m still not 100% sure what you’re saying - but at a guess, you’re suggesting that I could hire someone to read my phone/bank contracts for me. Is that right?
You claimed that the government performs a particular service. And then, you implied that you value that service and therefore you value government. My point is simple: If the government did not screen products, then the market would screen products.
I think this particular sub-issue is too much of a can of worms to continue. I’d like to just agree to differ at this point.
Well I don’t know if the government making a set of rules about contracts should be described as a “service”. I’m certainly not suggesting that they look at every contract before it is signed. I’m just asking them to step in when they receive a complaint that one of the rules has been broken.
Yes I agree that the market does indeed screen products to a considerable degree. If a company gets a reputation for putting sneaky terms in the small print then, when they get found out, the company will do badly in the market (hey, I’m nearly an Austrian!). But often the sneaky terms go un-noticed or un-complained-about even when a customer falls foul of them. For example, a considerable number of credit card holders don’t even know what interest rate they are being charged. Or when their rates go up. Probably greater than half the entire population do not understand the concept of compound interest. And most, if not all mobile phone users don’t know the full range of possible call charges that they may incur (and that include me).
Why not?
What rules?
No. I meant that if the government did not screen products whatsoever, the market would screen products more. I did not mean that the market-driven product screening that already exists is adequate.
Even if GOD himself was to come down from Heaven and hand the central planners a report, a perfect report on all of the needs and wants of every living person on the planet and even if it updated itself every second of every day there would still be a problem:
SOMEONE would have to make the decision about what changes to implement to the market. They would have to decide what resources to apply and how much time to spend making these little “fixes.”
That someone would be the central planner(s). How would they make these choices?
Actually I’m not complaining about your terminology - I just thought it a little strange and so I wanted to just check we were not talking at cross purposes. I’ll go along with it being called a service if you wish.
Well for example, how about “you are not allowed to claim or imply that the price of a product is ‘reduced’ in price unless that product was for sale and clearly displayed in that same store at the higher price (or more) for a period of X days and the price reduction occurred within the past Y days, where X is 30 and Y is 60 unless the product is perishable fruit and vegetables, in which case X is 10 and Y is 20.”.
That’s a reasonable argument - you may be right or wrong, I can’t tell. Do you know of any examples where a government has reduced regulation and a “market” system has subsequently evolved to help consumers?
Sure, if its a not very clever person, then they could make a complete mess of the job and make things worse than they started. Designing these kind of rules will be difficult. I just suggested a rule in my last posting, if I had GOD on my team I would ask him to give me a full report on how my rule will affect the economy - if he told me that there were a load of bad unintended consequences then I would retract or modify my rule.
Ok then.
MICK, THIS IS GOD SPEAKING. I HAVE A MESSAGE FOR YOU. DON’T MESS WITH THE MARKETPLACE AT ALL. IT IS THE SUM OF ALL CONSUMER VALUE JUDGEMENTS. ANY CHANGES, HOWEVER SMALL, THAT YOU MAKE WILL RESULT IN DENYING THE CHIOCES MADE BY CONSUMERS. IT WILL HAVE BAD CONSEQUENCES…
Don’t forget that the time and effort spent making choices is also a cost. By allowing smoke and mirrors, confusion marketing and sneaky small print I have to spend more time choosing products. I personally found the process of choosing a mobile phone contract to be quite tortuous. Don’t forget the bad unintended consequences of the free market.
MICK, THIS IS GOD AGAIN. I HAVE ONE LAST PIECE OF ADVICE FOR YOU: PLEASE DON’T TORTURE YOURSELF. YOU WERE ABLE TO PURCHASE A DEVICE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO TALK WITH ALMOST ANY OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANET AT ALMOST ANY TIME. IT FITS IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND AND WORKS WITH THE TOUCH OF A BUTTON. NO DOUBT IT IS SMALLER FASTER BETTER AND LESS EXPENSIVE THAN IT WAS JUST 5 YEARS AGO. EVEN IF YOU DIDN’T GET THE “OPTIMAL” DEAL IT IS STILL WONDERFUL. PLEASE ENJOY YOUR LIFE AND ALL IT HAS TO OFFER, EVEN IF YOU MAY HAVE PAID $10 TOO MUCH FOR A CELL PHONE…