Comments on: A Slight Definition http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-slight-definition/ programming, politics, & other religious issues Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:16:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: bhurt-aw http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-slight-definition/#comment-45 bhurt-aw Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:01:50 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2005/12/18/40#comment-45 So what would happen if Minnesota outlawed monopolies, and specifically tried to break up Microsoft? Microsoft is incorporated in Delaware, IIRC, and has it's headquarters in Seattle. Or would Microsoft simply laugh at them? Minnesota could then try to intervene in the relationship between Microsoft and Dell (a Texas company)- but again, it can't really do much. But Microsoft's monoply <em>does</em> effect Minnesota, quite deeply. Minnesota, by itself, simply isn't big enough to deal with the issue. Let's say there's a company that wants to build a plant that'll spit out a bunch of air pollution, and it wants to build it in the western part of the state. Minnesota says no- we don't want the air pollution. So the company says OK- and builds the plant across the border in South Dakota. We still get all the pollution, but now we get none of the taxes, nor can we do anything about the pollution. And when it comes to things like greenhouse gasses, pollution released in China does have an effect on Minnesota. How do we tell China to reign in the pollution? How does China tell us to do the same? Worse yet, in this situation, attempts to correct the failures of the market are penalized. The US's attempts to internalize previously externalized costs (such as pollution, and worker health and safety and economic justice) simply cause the jobs to get moved to places that aren't trying. Which means the US doesn't get the jobs, and gets all the problems it tried to avoid. The response is- logically enough- to repeal the environmental laws, wage minimums, worker safety laws, etc. If the costs are going to be externalized anyways, we might as well get the benefits (such as they are). Welcome to the new gilded age. The other alternative is to truely segment the market- to simply not allow stuff made in sufficiently different regulatory domains to be imported. In a word, protectionism. Except that anyone who has been paying attention knows that this doesn't work. So what would happen if Minnesota outlawed monopolies, and specifically tried to break up Microsoft? Microsoft is incorporated in Delaware, IIRC, and has it’s headquarters in Seattle. Or would Microsoft simply laugh at them? Minnesota could then try to intervene in the relationship between Microsoft and Dell (a Texas company)- but again, it can’t really do much. But Microsoft’s monoply does effect Minnesota, quite deeply. Minnesota, by itself, simply isn’t big enough to deal with the issue.

Let’s say there’s a company that wants to build a plant that’ll spit out a bunch of air pollution, and it wants to build it in the western part of the state. Minnesota says no- we don’t want the air pollution. So the company says OK- and builds the plant across the border in South Dakota. We still get all the pollution, but now we get none of the taxes, nor can we do anything about the pollution.

And when it comes to things like greenhouse gasses, pollution released in China does have an effect on Minnesota. How do we tell China to reign in the pollution? How does China tell us to do the same?

Worse yet, in this situation, attempts to correct the failures of the market are penalized. The US’s attempts to internalize previously externalized costs (such as pollution, and worker health and safety and economic justice) simply cause the jobs to get moved to places that aren’t trying. Which means the US doesn’t get the jobs, and gets all the problems it tried to avoid. The response is- logically enough- to repeal the environmental laws, wage minimums, worker safety laws, etc. If the costs are going to be externalized anyways, we might as well get the benefits (such as they are).

Welcome to the new gilded age.

The other alternative is to truely segment the market- to simply not allow stuff made in sufficiently different regulatory domains to be imported. In a word, protectionism. Except that anyone who has been paying attention knows that this doesn’t work.

]]> By: Candide http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-slight-definition/#comment-34 Candide Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:51:13 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2005/12/18/40#comment-34 > The goverment has to be large enough to effect the market, and > large enough the members of the market can not escape the > “intervention” of the goverment just by moving to a different part > of the market. If it’s against the law to do something profitable here, > move it to some place where it is legal (or at least not illegal)- South > Carolina or China or Bermuda or where ever. Basically, the > goverment needs to be as big as the entire market in order to be > effective in fixing the problems of the market. > Yes, if you treat the market as one atomic entity, you're right. But it's not one atomic entity -- it's nearly infinitely subdivisable. If a state illegalizes the sale of a product (say, cigarettes), it's certainly large enough to effect the market, when the market is topologically limited to the state. Sure, boundary people might be able to run to a different state to circumvent the requirement (c.f.: "blue laws", "Wisconsin run"), and that needs to be recognized by the state, but the requirements are there. > The goverment has to be large enough to effect the market, and
> large enough the members of the market can not escape the
> “intervention” of the goverment just by moving to a different part
> of the market. If it’s against the law to do something profitable here,
> move it to some place where it is legal (or at least not illegal)- South
> Carolina or China or Bermuda or where ever. Basically, the
> goverment needs to be as big as the entire market in order to be
> effective in fixing the problems of the market.
>
Yes, if you treat the market as one atomic entity, you’re right. But it’s not one atomic entity — it’s nearly infinitely subdivisable. If a state illegalizes the sale of a product (say, cigarettes), it’s certainly large enough to effect the market, when the market is topologically limited to the state. Sure, boundary people might be able to run to a different state to circumvent the requirement (c.f.: “blue laws”, “Wisconsin run”), and that needs to be recognized by the state, but the requirements are there.

]]> By: bhurt-aw http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-slight-definition/#comment-33 bhurt-aw Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:21:30 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2005/12/18/40#comment-33 The goverment has to be large enough to effect the market, and large enough the members of the market can not escape the "intervention" of the goverment just by moving to a different part of the market. If it's against the law to do something profitable here, move it to some place where it is legal (or at least not illegal)- South Carolina or China or Bermuda or where ever. Basically, the goverment needs to be as big as the entire market in order to be effective in fixing the problems of the market. Now, talking about a world goverment brings in other problems- like how do you make sure the goverment remains responsible/responsive. But it's the difference between the goverment having (soluable) problems, and the goverment being completely ineffective. The goverment has to be large enough to effect the market, and large enough the members of the market can not escape the “intervention” of the goverment just by moving to a different part of the market. If it’s against the law to do something profitable here, move it to some place where it is legal (or at least not illegal)- South Carolina or China or Bermuda or where ever. Basically, the goverment needs to be as big as the entire market in order to be effective in fixing the problems of the market.

Now, talking about a world goverment brings in other problems- like how do you make sure the goverment remains responsible/responsive. But it’s the difference between the goverment having (soluable) problems, and the goverment being completely ineffective.

]]> By: Candide http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-slight-definition/#comment-32 Candide Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:30:10 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2005/12/18/40#comment-32 Oh, and one more thing...back to TheHawk. > Paleoconservatism is much less about individual freedom as it is about > localism. The paleocons are much more in favor of an us vs. them > attitude which tends to lead towards certain self-serving ideals. For > example, paleoconservatism is strongly opposed to free trade, as it > endangers american products and workers. > Paleoconservatism is only opposed to free trade insofar as it endangers the American economy. In many cases, paleocons are in support of free trade, because there's mutual benefit by allowing free-flow of trade -- high tech industries are a good example of this. In general, there's also the understanding in the paleocon community that governmental programs of any size cost money (particularly the time-value of money), and so any program needs to be weighed carefully against its cost-benefit. Oh, and one more thing…back to TheHawk.

> Paleoconservatism is much less about individual freedom as it is about
> localism. The paleocons are much more in favor of an us vs. them
> attitude which tends to lead towards certain self-serving ideals. For
> example, paleoconservatism is strongly opposed to free trade, as it
> endangers american products and workers.
>
Paleoconservatism is only opposed to free trade insofar as it endangers the American economy. In many cases, paleocons are in support of free trade, because there’s mutual benefit by allowing free-flow of trade — high tech industries are a good example of this. In general, there’s also the understanding in the paleocon community that governmental programs of any size cost money (particularly the time-value of money), and so any program needs to be weighed carefully against its cost-benefit.

]]> By: Candide http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-slight-definition/#comment-31 Candide Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:26:18 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2005/12/18/40#comment-31 > And we’re begining to see the need for a global goverment to > go with the global market- to address issues like copyright and > patent protection, workers rights, environmental issues, and so on. > I see no reason why we need centralization to address those issues. In fact, the only side-effect of centralization is the ability to dangerously over-extend copyright/patent protection and similar issues, just as the federal government has over-extended those issues. Civil rights and environmental issues do need to get resolved, but they need to be resolved by actions of independent nations working in concert in recognition of their mutual importance -- this is the fundamental idea behind the UN, and it's a good one. > And we’re begining to see the need for a global goverment to
> go with the global market- to address issues like copyright and
> patent protection, workers rights, environmental issues, and so on.
>
I see no reason why we need centralization to address those issues. In fact, the only side-effect of centralization is the ability to dangerously over-extend copyright/patent protection and similar issues, just as the federal government has over-extended those issues.

Civil rights and environmental issues do need to get resolved, but they need to be resolved by actions of independent nations working in concert in recognition of their mutual importance — this is the fundamental idea behind the UN, and it’s a good one.

]]>