« Stop whining | Main | King's Gambit »
The best sentence I read today
First, your model of the individual is very likely based on you.
You'll find lots of contrarianism (for libertarians, that is, and note we should always be polite to contrarians) here and here. I also enjoyed this bit:
This is the other thing I don't get about small government types. You protest so vociferously that government takes choices away from you. But a whole lot of choices are BORING. If I never once think about car bumper safety standards for 25mph crashes, I will never miss it. I do not want to carefully match my car safety standards to my most likely driving patterns and save two grand in the process. I would not enjoy that process. (Perhaps you would, and you would rather have the money.) I've never been a comparison shopper or a meticulous consumer. Maybe my model of the individual is too biased by my experience. But I don't want to figure out how much coliform bacteria I can tolerate on my spinach, given my health...
...*I can hear you already: "But you are FORCING me to take that deal too.". Yes. But right now our system FORCES me to comparison shop. Either way, someone gets FORCED to do something, and I don't see a justice interest on one side or the other. Absent a justice interest, we might as well just go with the system that creates the most utility overall.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 7, 2007 at 09:26 PM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
I agree with the first sentence, but the subsequent argument is rather weak. The market doesn't have any mechanisms to filter out low quality products? C'mon. I would like to hear some commentary from Dr. Cowen on this (I did buy your book after the secret blog and podcast offers, perhaps I might be so lucky for a short MR post?). Forget the moral argument of being FORCED to comparison shop, my contention is that market forces would mostly mitigate the need to sans gov't regulation on cars/food/whatever.
Posted by: mtc at Sep 7, 2007 10:20:18 PM
I agree, the second argument is completely bogus. I'm actually ashamed of Tyler for quoting it uncritically. If only there was an private organization that would do product safety testing... They could call themselves Underwrites Laboratories, or something. Or Consumer Reports.
The existence of private safety-certifying organizations notwithstanding, the government could simply slap a "government approved" label on the drugs and spinach it likes, while still leavining us free to choose products which lack that seal of approval.
Posted by: Josh Purinton at Sep 7, 2007 10:28:08 PM
Agreed, the second argument is nonsense. He could always pick some other government's choices, and then stick without further choosing.
Posted by: Russ Nelson at Sep 7, 2007 11:12:42 PM
Government intervention substitutes for and displaces branding. With everything being government approved, there is no need for brands; whatever toothpaste you buy, whether it's "Colgate" or "Shendong Dentifrice Happy Product", you have reasonable assurance that it's not going to kill you because the government does a reasonable job of preventing that.
In the absence of government regulation, branding means a lot more - you have to stick with brands that you trust. I suspect (but am not sure) that this discourages real competition and encourages monopolies. It is not clear if reliance on branding is less expensive in the long run.
Food safety in particular was really horrendous before government regulation. These regulations exist for good reasons. It's not clear if improved information exchange would make the situation any different today.
Posted by: Tony at Sep 7, 2007 11:24:59 PM
Yeah, a rather lame argument. But I certainly don't yearn for the good 'ol days before gubmint regulation of drugs. Just think, you could get everything from arsenic-based tonics to radioactive "vitalizers." Absent some government oversight we'd likely have some modern equivalent of these wonders.
Posted by: kwark at Sep 8, 2007 12:11:52 AM
Yeah, a rather lame argument. But I certainly don't yearn for the good 'ol days before gubmint regulation of drugs. Just think, you could get everything from arsenic-based tonics to radioactive "vitalizers." Absent some government oversight we'd likely have some modern equivalent of these wonders.
Posted by: kwark at Sep 8, 2007 12:11:59 AM
Yeah, a rather lame argument. But I certainly don't yearn for the good 'ol days before gubmint regulation of drugs. Just think, you could get everything from arsenic-based tonics to radioactive "vitalizers." Absent some government oversight we'd likely have some modern equivalent of these wonders.
Posted by: kwark at Sep 8, 2007 12:12:03 AM
Not only is "your model of the individual is very likely based on you", but your model of the world is based on your local environment.Anyone who has traveled knows that protecting yourself from becoming ill due to contaminated food and water is much harder if the people around you are infected with food and water born bacteria. The benefits of public health regulations can not be replaced by private insurance or branding.
Posted by: joan at Sep 8, 2007 12:29:21 AM
I prefer shopping at Costco to shopping at, say, Target because Costco gives me fewer choices, typically only one in a category
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Sep 8, 2007 12:31:07 AM
joan: "The benefits of public health regulations can not be replaced by private insurance or branding. "
I suspect joan is correct. But I hope we never find out in my lifetime. Experimenting with a free market alternative to public health regulation just seems too risky. Can the benefit we might realize be greater than the risk? I don't see how, and I suspect the voting public agrees.
Posted by: John Dewey at Sep 8, 2007 5:24:35 AM
your model of the individual is very likely based on you
Absolutely true and this is the main reason why I find it sad that arguments about social direction get so rancorous. My preferences for big government are built around *my* model of individuals (people who are prepared to sacrifice some choice/liberty for "guarantees" of safety) which is, of course, built around me.
Can the benefit we might realize (from experimenting with a free market alternative to public health regulation) be greater than the risk?
It all depends how much you value freedom versus how much you value risk.
My social preferences are currently ascendant, but I'm not going to take it personally that people with other preferences are trying to change society away from *my* preferences. After all, in the few cases where my society differs from my preferences, I'm making (admittedly minimal) effort to change it.
I don't think that (barring the outrageous), that having different social preferences should tar one side or the other as evil, stupid, or both.
Posted by: Tom West at Sep 8, 2007 6:56:41 AM
Without the gubmint, who would have tracked the deaths to the spinach?
Posted by: odograph at Sep 8, 2007 6:57:38 AM
There is a hint in this chatter of being happy to shuck off some individual "burdens" (boring things?) to other social institutions, be they the mechanisms of governments, religious organizations, or even the immediate family (a favorite of adolescents). This is not far removed from escaping individual "responsibilities" (even for one's self) by their transfer to a larger group, again, predominately those organizations we call governments. You know, "The Schools are doing a poor job of educating our children!" Whilst I watch Nascar on TV.
Posted by: R. Richard Schweitzer at Sep 8, 2007 7:15:13 AM
What the free marketeers don't mention when they suggest private testing and certification, is that those are industries prone to natural monopoly. Underwriters Labs and TUV are both monopolistic in the US and Germany respectively.
If we must have monopolies, better that they are publicly run or regulated, with open processes.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Sep 8, 2007 8:15:45 AM
What, nobody made the argument that firms sell safe products because it is to their own interest to do so.
Of course this is a true statement of what happens in the world. But on the other hand doesn't the existence of government safety regulation actually encourage this type of firm behavior. Government regulations encourages firms to act responsible because they know their place in the market is not going to be undercut by some other firm selling an unsafe product for a slightly lower price. The counter-factual argument advanced by libertarians is that without regulations virtually all firms would sell safe products. The non-libertarians argue that in the absence of regulations many firms would be concerned with safety, but there would also be a large number of firms that would just try to be the low cost supplier and this would lead to many unsafe products. The non-libertarians thinks there is always a fast-buck operator out there while libertarians assume that they will not survive. Yes, they may not survive in the original line of business but they will immediately be replaced by another fast-buck supplier and/or the old supplier will just go into another line of business. Libertarians are arguring that someone will not take the opportunity to sell an unsafe product at a lower price. That line of though seems to be in direct opposition to many other libertarian arguments.
Isn't this what we are seeing in the example of all the unsafe Chinese products. They were purchased by vendors because they were the low cost supplier. But even the US vendors -- who should have been much better positioned to detect unsafe products then the typical consumer --did not go to the trouble of double checking why these suppliers were the low cost provider. According to libertarian theory the US vendors would have kept these unsafe products off the shelves. Why didn't your theory work?
Posted by: spencer at Sep 8, 2007 11:26:21 AM
I'm a frustrated shopper sometimes, too. It's worse if the decision is an important one. I always feel like I should have spent more time on research.
Posted by: KingM at Sep 8, 2007 11:27:02 AM
Steve Sailer,
I have an even better solution for you. Send me your money and I will send you goods. You only have to make one choice rather than many.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Sep 8, 2007 11:43:04 AM
My model of the individual is a rational, intelligent, knowledgeable, entrepreneurial, bold, decisive, suave and funny man. Huh, I guess you are right.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Sep 8, 2007 1:24:15 PM
It's not that all government oversight or protection is necessarily a bad thing; it's that one has to eventually ask, "When and where does it stop?" In other words, when is enough - enough?
Some government bureaucracies that serve legitimate purposes tend to, overtime, begin to think like the private sector but without the specter of negative consequences for making wrong decisions - striving to do more for their constituents (customers) those regulating bureaucracies may inadvertently create more problems than solutions and even limit choices and efficiencies all in the name of "serving the public".
Tread lightly...
Posted by: Mike at Sep 8, 2007 2:19:26 PM
Food safety in particular was really horrendous before government regulation. These regulations exist for good reasons.
Let's be clear about this. Factory-farmed, distance-shipped food was generally unsafe. Local food whose processes could be observed or whose producers were locally known was fine. Not surprisingly, corporate agribusinesses wanted someone to certify their products were safe so that they weren't outcompeted by local producers. The government was an ideal choice: they didn't have to pay for it, they could impose heavy costs on smaller producers who didn't need government oversight, and they could borrow the goodwill of the state.
Heavy oversight is essential when you're dealing with mass-market, factory-farmed, distance-shipped food. The process is opaque. Heavy oversight isn't necessary with locally grown or produced food, because reputation and transparency covers much more of it.
Posted by: Joshua Holmes at Sep 8, 2007 2:31:15 PM
Joshua -- if your version of how food regulation came about is correct why do we have all these public records and other historic documents that demonstrate how they fought it tooth and nail?
Posted by: spencer at Sep 8, 2007 4:28:02 PM
"My model of the individual is a rational, intelligent, knowledgeable, entrepreneurial, bold, decisive, suave and funny man. Huh, I guess you are right"
A layup, but very funny. :)
I do find the amount of choice we have today overwhelming. That said, about the things I care about, I am glad we have it. I guess I have to put up with some loss. For example, I frequently find myself in pharmacies staring at stuff like toothpaste or decongestants for many minutes before I just say what the hell and grab something I think might be useful.
On the other hand, went to a local wine shop here and was happy that they were even in business.
Josh:
"Not surprisingly, corporate agribusinesses wanted someone to certify their products were safe so that they weren't outcompeted by local producers."
just not true.
Posted by: mickslam at Sep 8, 2007 5:42:21 PM
mickslam, have you ever heard of Gabriel Kolko?
spencer, China does have government oversight. They killed the guy who was supposed to ensuring their stuff was sight.
Posted by: TGGP at Sep 8, 2007 5:46:02 PM
Call me mean, but having read some of her entries, she seems to be a somewhat more messed-up than normal person. So, perhaps her favored government policies are based on a model of an individual with less than average psychological health. (Though she seems to assume that the bureaucrats that will run her favored programs will be exceptions from her model.)
Posted by: J. at Sep 8, 2007 6:19:02 PM
Steven Sailor:
"I prefer shopping at Costco to shopping at, say, Target because Costco gives me fewer choices, typically only one in a category"
I'm glad there are enough choices in retail stores for you to find your preferred retail experience.
Posted by: price at Sep 8, 2007 10:51:54 PM
