Digital BW, The Print

Keith,

I have to take exception to the way you have responded on three counts.

Firstly, you are arguing by exaggeration here.  Worse, you are 
premising your exaggeration on points that Bob did not actually say.  
The law of supply and demand is not the same as your caustic 
interpretation of laissez faire.  Nobody suggested abandoning _all_ 
government regulation.  Nobody suggested suspending a person's right to 
sue in the case of wrongful injury.  Epson carts blowing up and causing 
eye injuries? -- give me a break.

Two, your tone is demeaning and argumentative.

Three, there is a serious disconnect between what you actually know and 
what you purport to know with respect to economics and the Law.

I am happy to provide a more detailed assessment of your recent posts, 
but would prefer to do it off-list.  In the meantime I have to go find 
out what went wrong with my junk mail filter.

--
Kevin

On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Keith Krebs 
<editor@...> wrote:

> --- 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
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>