Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob_Michaels 
<Bob@B...>" <Bob@B...> wrote:
> Keith:
> 
> Doesn't your logic apply as well to Gilette practically giving away
> razors and charging dearly for the blades? 

Perhaps, perhaps not, that debate is NOt for here though..

>I'm a real believer that
> open markets, the old law of "supply and demand", and traditional
> economics do much better than any government regulation. 

Looks like you  missed a WHOLE bunch of economics there old timer.  
You are guilty of one of the most basic of errors - mistaking the 
concept of a "free market" for that of laissez faire Capitalism.

To illustrate why government rules are necessary..

In a truly Laissez Faire system (as you support):  "traditional
economics do much better than any government regulation", consumers 
would be wholly subject to the rule of "caveat emptor" ("buyer 
beware"). If they were injured by a defective product they could not 
recover. 

Similarly, if the product did not perform as advertised, they could 
not be guaranteed any compensation.  What then happens is you result 
in not a "free market," but instead, a market highly skewed to favor 
the monetary power of individual producers/companies.  In fact, in 
such a system, the larger the company and its power, the less likely 
a consumer is to be even able to acquire the information necessary 
to "know" about the product they buy, or to recover for injuries 
they receive.  Look back at the history of railroads and the "robber 
barons" for what happens in such a market.

>Over the
> years we've worried about regulating such virtual monopolies as 
Xerox,
> IBM, AT&T, even Wordstar (for us old timers) and their pricing
> structures. I just view this issue is one of more educated 
consumers
> coming out ahead. More government regulation won't help anything. 

Ahh... But here we are again.  If all the information on inks 
is "proprietary" and there are no "government rules" regulating fair 
advertising, fraud, injury, etc., then how DOES the consumer EVER 
get info...?

Your system sounds "oh so nice, and simple" so attractive.  
Unfortunately, in practice it would be a nightmare of the first 
order. If one EPSON cartridge in EVERY 1000 blew up and perhaps one 
in 10 of those resulted in an eye injury, would you be willing to 
forego suing EPSON if your eye was the one injured.  If your car is 
defective and it catches on fire, or a defective transmission fails 
causing you to run over a loved one, are you willing to tell us that 
you PROMISE not to sue the manufacturer?  For that is what your 
regime would pre-suppose - "no government regulation" means exactly 
that - you would not be able to sue in court for your injuries.. 

With the number of products coming on the market daily it would be 
impossible for even the most informed consumers to keep up.  Imagine 
is we had to look up each and every ingredient on packages and cross-
index them with other ingredients in the same product for safety and 
efficacy... Not to mention with all our other products, drugs, etc, 
AND then compare this all to a database of "safe" products (WHO the 
heck would even keep such a database in your world I wonder - would 
we need to pay to subscribe to this "voluntary" list? - so, only 
those with enough discretionary cash would be worthy of receiving 
safe products?).. Your world would make a simple trip to the 
supermarket an educational experience worthy of granting a 
bachelor's degree.

Nice idea Bob if we leaved in a utopian world of inidividuals who 
never lied, cheated, and who would not put the safety of others 
ahead of their own pocketbook.. 

Unfortunately, I AM an informed consumer, both on the products AND 
the economics, so, feel free to set up "straw men" again for me 
anytime..

Keith