"The World Catalogue of Potato Varieties provides a description of more than 4,000 different potato varieties which are cultivated in over 100 countries world wide."

However, according to agricultural research David Spooner, they all originated in Perú, (in fact, from the area north of Lake Titicaca). Andean peoples have been cultivating potatoes for over 7,000 years, and the International Potato Centre maintains a gene bank of over 5,000 cultivars and 2,400 wild species of potatoes, along with many varieties of sweetpotatoes and other tubers.

However, this incredible diversity is at risk as the result of climate change and monoculture.

Marx theorized that as capitalism matured, ownership of the means of production would become consolidated in fewer and fewer hands. He claimed this would eventually lead to monopoly capitalism, in which there would be only one producer of each type of product and service.

Marx was basically right, but with a twist. History has shown that ownership of the means of procution will become consolidated within individual industries, but that most new industries will not be consolidated. New industries may in fact enjoy a period of increased competition, before the inevitable onset of consolidation. In many established industries where consolidation has occured, small companies may emerge to fill a niche market. An example would be the recording industry, where independent record companies still exist to produce albums by artist that the major labels won't touch, for whatever reason.

The path of progression from infancy to maturity varies across different industries, due to many factors. One of these factors is variations in the ammount of capital required to become a producer of products in a given industry. Another is variations across industries in the ability of companies to develop niche products and services. Yet in almost every industry, maturity means a smaller number of companies controlling an ever larger share of the market.

The maturation and consolidation of industries tends to mitigate against choice over time. Again, the extent to which choice is mitigated depends on whether niche products and services can be developed in a given industry. Yet in general, 3 major companies controlling 80% of an industry will offer less choice than 6 major companies controlling 50% of an industry.

[ 16 June 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

But does this choice truly affect the course or meaning of you life?

Does it in any real sense give you a say in how your country's economic system fuctions?

Does it even allow you to have a say in how that ice cream is produced, what wages or conditions the workers at the ice cream plant or, for that matter, in the vanilla-bean growing areas of Madagascar will be faced with?

2) "People don't want choice. They want what they want."

The first of those quotes comes from a textbook on traffic engineering written somewhere around 1950; the second one I heard on BBC4 about ten years ago, in an interview with some sort of marketing person. I think they're both important points: "choice" is not a good in and of itself. The issue is whether what I really want is part of the gamut on offer.

On the other hand,

3) "Choice is a bourgeois conceit."

Most of the world eat the same (inadequate) meal every day. Choosing from a menu is an unimaginable fantasy; simply having enough to eat is hard enough to imagine. Choice may not be a bourgeois conceit, exactly, but it is a luxury. Venezuela's subsidized markets, Mercal, don't offer a lot of choice, but they're extremely popular nonetheless: what is on offer is affordable. Soviet markets didn't feature a lot of variety either, but they weren't the origin of the famous marketing slogan, "any colour you want as long as it's black."

In the end, I'm not sure that this is the right question. Mass production, whatever its ideological origins, by its nature tends towards monoculture. Modern capitalist marketing obscures that by offering false variety: you really can choose whatever colour you want, but under the paint, the product is the same.

Monoculture is a bad thing, most of the time -- but standardization has its place, too: you don't really want too many different incompatible nuts and bolts.

Monoculture is a particularly bad strategy for agriculture because of the vulnerability it creates. But ecological food production wouldn't necessarily give consumers more choice either; we really should learn to eat what is locally available rather than shipping bananas around the world (and breeding food varieties optimised for shipping rather than taste and nutritional value.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bobolink:
If you want to look at monoculture, look at food production in the Communist Soviet Union. I am sure Fidel will want to enlighten us on the benefits of having no choice at all.

---

Over a period of twenty years before the wall fell I made visits to (then)Czechoslovakia, Poland and Bulgaria, so I can't speak to the Soviet Union directly but I imagine the setup was similar.

Food was basic, wholesome and abundant; softdrinks were apalling (but by definition they are anyway, aren't they?) and of course the beer was excellent. Restaurants offered a choice of dishes and shops a choice of goods. Certainly not the seven varieties of zweiback toast you'll find at your local Loblaws but sufficient to prove the lie to the above idiocy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:
What the free market does is it mitigates against choice over time.

Marx theorized that as capitalism matured, ownership of the means of production would become consolidated in fewer and fewer hands. He claimed this would eventually lead to monopoly capitalism, in which there would be only one producer of each type of product and service.

Marx was basically right, but with a twist. History has shown that ownership of the means of procution will become consolidated within individual industries, but that most new industries will not be consolidated. New industries may in fact enjoy a period of increased competition, before the inevitable onset of consolidation. In many established industries where consolidation has occured, small companies may emerge to fill a niche market. An example would be the recording industry, where independent record companies still exist to produce albums by artist that the major labels won't touch, for whatever reason.

The path of progression from infancy to maturity varies across different industries, due to many factors. One of these factors is variations in the ammount of capital required to become a producer of products in a given industry. Another is variations across industries in the ability of companies to develop niche products and services. Yet in almost every industry, maturity means a smaller number of companies controlling an ever larger share of the market.

The maturation and consolidation of industries tends to mitigate against choice over time. Again, the extent to which choice is mitigated depends on whether niche products and services can be developed in a given industry. Yet in general, 3 major companies controlling 80% of an industry will offer less choice than 6 major companies controlling 50% of an industry.

[ 16 June 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

---

That doesn't really jibe with the huge rise in organic and more natural companies and the increasing rate in which people are choosing locally grown food. Philip Morris may own Kraft and a million other companies, but most people I know never choose their products. PC Organics or Earthbound are increasing their marketshare everyday. If these companies abandon the agricultural principles that made them so popular, smaller companies adhering to organic farming will fill the void.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:
Despite our health care system's refusal to recognize naturpaths, many people are choosing this type of healthcare as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:
Are you implying that Naturopaths are not scientifically trained? FYI, they have many years of post-secondary education.

---

I'm not implying anything about these prestigious highly-schooled naturopaths. What makes you think that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bobolink:
If you want to look at monoculture, look at food production in the Communist Soviet Union. I am sure Fidel will want to enlighten us on the benefits of having no choice at all.

---

Imagine the geographic situations were reversed - that the Soviets possessed the lush arable lands of Prince Edward Island, Ottawa and Okanagan Valleys, the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, Kansas, Idaho, Florida and California citrus groves and the High Plains region of the U.S. with natural water feed of the Ogalala Acquifer and now 25 percent desertified by modern mechanized farming methods, and the farming capacity of ten other U.S. states. And we should include what is a cornucopia supply of fruits and vegetables from the banana Republics in Latin America grown and picked by some of the poorest people in the world. Still, the price of bread in 1980's Soviet Russia was so cheap that children used loaves as footballs.

The Russian's have gained insights into refrigerated food transport since glasnost, but for the most part the food shortages across the former USSR were most severe in the 15 years after glasnost and after cold war trade embargos were no longer a factor. Poverty in Russia increased 30 fold after 1991 and millions died during the economic reforms drafted by the most brilliant western minds in economics, some of which are undergoing reversal now.

[ 17 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

down at the supermarket, there are only 10 or 12 veggys. but in my gardening book, there are many many more. (No sprouting brocolli ever in that store) and sprouting has better flavour than ordinary. And only 4 or 5 breeds of spuds. I worked in plant breeding for a time and there are hundreds of varietys of spuds! why only 4 or 5 for the bc consumer?
I think the free market reduces choice and imposes it from on top. What do you think?
Brian

---

I'm not sure this lack of options is due to a free market. I don't see how socialized food production would produce more varieties of vegetables to be grown.

If a store were to carry two dozen kinds of each vegetable it would be a produce store only. I wonder if there's enough interest in food choice for a store with 12 kinds of potatoes to stay in business?

If you want a broader selection of foods to eat, why not buy some seeds and grow your own?

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:

That doesn't really jibe with the huge rise in organic and more natural companies and the increasing rate in which people are choosing locally grown food. Philip Morris may own Kraft and a million other companies, but most people I know never choose their products. PC Organics or Earthbound are increasing their marketshare everyday. If these companies abandon the agricultural principles that made them so popular, smaller companies adhering to organic farming will fill the void.

---

It does, actually. You have illustrated exactly what Left Turn said:

quote:

---

New industries may in fact enjoy a period of increased competition, before the inevitable onset of consolidation. In many established industries where consolidation has occured, small companies may emerge to fill a niche market.

---

As for Naturopaths, they are being proved correct in the area of nutrition. In all other areas, it's too soon to tell. As mainstream medical services become harder for poor and rural people to access, there will be more demand for alternative health care. A portion of that (notably herbal remedies) has already been co-opted by Big Pharma, resulting in pressure on the government to shut down real herbalists. (Chalk up another one for Left Turn.)

[ 17 June 2006: Message edited by: nonsuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The free market has provided us with a shortage fish off Canada's Grand Banks. The free market has given us Tuna and other fish that are unfit for consumption. The free market needs regulation in the worst way.

---

I thought that the fisheries were regulated. Heavily regulated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by deadduck:
However, it is this abiltiy to do a great deal of damage that an anarcho/marxist analysis shows to be a systematic injustice in market systems.

---

For a good general overview of capitalist economics (including the modified form we have -- though I'd argue that a purely free market would likely be worse) you can see http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secCcon.html
or Marx's Critique of Political Economy (Marx writes a good deal about the tendency towards monopoly in firms)... A great intro (I'm not sure if I'm talking to an economist here or someone new to political economy) is the ABCs of Political Economy by Robert Hahnel (sp?)... As well zmag.org have some good/free stuff....

I think most on the list have a good deal of this critique already....

I can debate/discuss specifics if you like....

Peace,

DD

(is that adequate?)

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: deadduck ]

Free market advocates say that if markets are free you can choose who to work for and what to buy, while those who produce have free choices about who to hire and what to produce. If they want to make money they'll create the variety of goods people want.

Socialists would argure that that by having a system based on individual rather than social decision making there are no real free decisions at all, as those with power (money) use their money to corrupts the playing field. Rich producers can help create monopoly, limit production choices and by choosing who to hire control wages. Not only this but as time goes by they gain more power not less (see Hahnel for a very good breakdown of this).

So the workers (those who sell their labour -- I know this is a simplification and out of date, but it gets main point) have no control over the choices (options). They must work within the margins allowed by the market (which they have no say in as the free market is based on indivual choices and not social ones).

Social choices whould mean collectively deciding (in small communities/factories/etc) what we as workers/consumers/citizens need and then deciding what we'll make rather than having it dictated to us by those in power.

Phew... I'll edit this later if it's out to lunch...

The title of this thread though cuts to the heart of what it means to be "left". I wish I could explain it in conversation... I didn't mean to prescribe a reading list, but this stuff, in being essential to any philosophy on the left, is important. I'm Sorry about you having to read all about LBJ though... Good luck...

Peace...

DD

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: deadduck ]

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: deadduck ]

Edited to add: I don't have to read the LBJ book, it's a fun read for personal leisure.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RookieActivist:

I thought that the fisheries were regulated. Heavily regulated.

---

The two old line parties have handed out fishing licences to foreign trawlers for several decades. And bang! One day, there aren't any fish left. And so now we've got a ministry of clams and lobsters. I think Mulroney's minister, John Crosbie's family made a fortune on fishing off our East coast. Aye, don't be fishin' o'er there, bye!.

quote:

---

Fidel I would suggest you read Simone Weil. She was a female academic, activist, and philosopher who died of self-depravation at the start of World War II. She was one of the first to critically analyze Stalin and recognize that oppression will continue regardless of the mode of production.

---

I think you should realize that there were three international attempts to put down the Russian revolution and which tore that country apart in the years following 1917. If the western world could have left it alone, then perhaps there would have been no Josef Stalin rise to the forefront of Russian politics.

The market would generate as much choice as possible, providing that people were willing to pay for it, and if the price covers costs.

If you have iPodish stuff I have some good audio files I can send you if that's easier to find time for... There's lots of stuff out there as well on the information superhighway (I love political economy and quit music school because of it...). I think the thread might just be too thick to deal with the topic adequately -- but there's lots of stuff out there that doesn't require complicated maths (although if you're into sciences you'd have an advantage over most of us)...

Didn't mean to dis reading LBJ.

quote:

---

Originally posted by deadduck:
Social choices whould mean collectively deciding (in small communities/factories/etc) what we as workers/consumers/citizens need and then deciding what we'll make rather than having it dictated to us by those in power.

---

I agree with you up to this point. The problem is that with socialism "we" don't decide what is needed. Those in power make those decisions. And those decisions are affected by all sorts of things, including international competition (as Fidel alludes to). If a socialist nation must compete with capitalist nations, measured in production, then those in power will decide to increase production. And the way a socialist nation increases production is much the same that a capitalist system does: by oppressing the working class.

quote:

---

Originally posted by deadduck:

Social choices whould mean collectively deciding (in small communities/factories/etc) what we as workers/consumers/citizens need and then deciding what we'll make rather than having it dictated to us by those in power.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: deadduck ]

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: deadduck ]

---

But really all that does is make the workers down at the local potato field the ones in power, and its essentially the same thing as having one man in charge.

Lets say the potato collective chooses to grow one type of potatoes because they are cheap to produce and grow quickly. Brian (who doesn't grow potatoes) is still being dictated to what type of potatoes he can buy down at the local supermarket. He is just being dictated to by a larger number of people.

If the collective is broken into 5 smaller potato collectives each owned by the workers, then there will be more incentive for each indivdual collective to grow and market a potato that stands out from the crowd and ensures the success of their collective. Of course that leads to a fee market though.

I don't understand how a completely socialized and fair market would have any incentive at all to produce a variety of products. The most efficient way to produce enough product for everyone and at low cost is to produce products on a massive scale.

If the potato growers cannot receive more money for growing a niche potato then there is absolutely no incentive to do the extra work required.

Can the planners of a central economy justify expending a considerably large amount of labour and resources just for the sake of diversity?

In many cases the decisions are quite simple. a large portion of the goods in capitalist society are either, not practical at all, or are "enhanced" with non-practical elements that then become desirable through advertising. In the abnsence of capitalism, much of its non-practical excesses would probably dissapear. It wouldn't happen overnight, because peoples desires do take time to change, but it probably would happen.

quote:

---

We would probably get an end to the false choices of the market (ie. the 15 different varieties of vanilla ice cream are nolonger necessary when the best vanilla ice cream possible becomes universally available and affordable). At the same time we would probably get real choice in things where choice does matter, like clothing, housing, entertainment, urban planning/transportation,etc.

---

In other words, there would be choice in the things Left Turn wants there to be choices in, and no choices in the things he deems to be 'no longer necessary'.

Left Turn, why do you get to decide what is and isn't necessary and who are you to tell everbody else what the best flavour of ice cream is?

2.Rambler took most of what I was going to say with the rest.

I'm hardly going to say the free market is perfect, in fact, I have a couple right wing friends who think I'm a communist (I keep telling them they should argue with Fidel instead), and I agree that the benefits of the free market can certainly be lessened with monopolies and oligopolies.

That said though, while I prefer indie films (i.e small industry capitalism) to big films (the oligopolies), the phrase I use is this: there are a lot of crappie indie films and there are a lot of very good films put out by the big studio system.

It's the same thing with markets too. The fact is, the big oligopolies often create much better products than the small producers, and there are a number of industries (like the auto industry) where the barriers of entry are so high in terms of the capital required, that only a handful of companies can operate in them (like the automobile industry).

The best example of the first case (oligopolies providing a better product than small producers), is the hotel industry. I've read that before the industry was taken over with chains, hotels were largely singly owner/operated and the standards simply didn't exist. While undoubtedely there were many good hotels, the traveler often encountered rat infested (well maybe not rats ), unclean, unsanitary rooms. The takeover of the industry by big players has meant standardization and 99.9% of the time, good, safe clean rooms.

3.

quote:

---

Marx was basically right, but with a twist. History has shown that ownership of the means of procution will become consolidated within individual industries, but that most new industries will not be consolidated. New industries may in fact enjoy a period of increased competition, before the inevitable onset of consolidation. In many established industries where consolidation has occured, small companies may emerge to fill a niche market. An example would be the recording industry, where independent record companies still exist to produce albums by artist that the major labels won't touch, for whatever reason.

---

I've only taken first year economics so far (I've gone back to school to major in it: I did get the highest marks in the class in both macro and micro courses: I think some credit for that goes to using what I learnt discussing it on this board and elsewhere), but I would say that most economists disagree with that.

I think most economists would argue that Joseph Schumpeter (whose name sadly had not come up in this thread prior to now) is far more prescient at describing what will happen to a market than Karl Marx. Schumpeter's famous phrase is 'creative destruction' which describes the process whereby former monopoly markets (or any industry for that matter) are broken down by new technologies and innovations that allow new players to either enter the sector or to create a new sector.

The classic example that used to be given in economic textbooks was the monopoly (due to patent protection) that was held by some fountain pen company. Of course, the bullpoint pen was introduced and the fountain pen company went out of business.

The history of the bullpoint pen industry itself is rather interesting as well. Bullpoint pens started out as a luxury item costing many times what they do today (in real, not nominal terms), but, within a few years, improved production techniques and the rigors of competition had reduced the price significantly. Pens are, of course, another product where there is significant choice of what to purchase.

The obvious sectors going through creative destruction now are the phone and television markets where everything seems to be 'converging' with the internet. Of course, with the potential loss of net neutrality, we could wind up seeing one of the downsides of capitalism.

4.

quote:

---

rather than having it dictated to us by those in power.

---

The point of the free market is that there is a 'market', i.e an INTERACTION of buyers and sellers. There seems to be this view among some posters here that the 'free market' is a one way thing with the sellers controlling everything and the buyers having no power at all. That's garbage. I certainly don't think I'm polyanna or anything in saying that buyers have a great deal of power by simply refusing to buy something if they don't like it.

Succesful producers don't sell the products "they decide to make", they sell the products the market wants. Of course there are criticisms to this, such as the power of advertising and the obvious fact that large urban centres are going to have more choice available than rural places (that, of course, is a tradeoff that rural citizens make), but no system ever tried has produced as much 'social wealth' as the free market system.

I would assume that Brian White, the creator of this thread lives in a rural area. Indeed, I'm surprised that nobody asked him about that.

quote:

---

Social choices whould mean collectively deciding (in small communities/factories/etc) what we as workers/consumers/citizens need and then deciding what we'll make

---

Of course, this largely exists already, with co-operatives, farmer's markets and the like. These are basically niche markets of the free market system, rather than some alternative to it. If the poster prefers to buy his goods that way, he is free to do so, (and I do myself at times as well), but I don't see why everybody should be forced to follow his choice.

5.In regards to the original point on the thread, the produce market is one where clearly we see the downsides of capitalism: we have a sector controlled by a handful of seed 'manufacturers', who in their desire to reduce costs, have standardized their product line and are reducing the types of vegetables available to be cultivated.

Fortunately, many farmers are resisting. We have the development of 'heritage seed' trading, for instance.

Also, Norway has decided to store seeds in the Arctic should anything bad happen.

http://tinyurl.com/nw7ns

As bad as this is, I think clearly the modern (i.e, in the last 10 years or so) pharmaceutical industry though, is the textbook example of the free market system producing mostly negative results for society. So, it's interesting that natural supplements have been mentioned in this thread, though I suspect most of those things are just junk.

[ 21 June 2006: Message edited by: Adam T ]

It occurred three times in quick succession, so it couldn't have been a slip of the keyboard. It must have been intentional.

I think that's fair enough because you can't actually see the ball at the point, just the outside part of it at any one time. It never occured to me the ball moved.

[ 21 June 2006: Message edited by: Adam T ]

Do we really need another post-nasal drip remedy or Tylenol knock-off ?. What have they been doing with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of consumer purchases every year for decades ?.

Do we really need to choose between a dozen plastic air fresheners when there are people dying of asthma in major cities and clogging up emergency hospital wards because they they can't breathe properly ?.

And what about cars that rust out just in time for the last payment ?. What would happen if the big three actually made something somebody wants to drive because it meets *maximum safety and fuel efficiency standards?.

quote:

---

Yes Adam. But do we really need seven different colours of plastic shower curtain liners that use up thousands of gallons of fresh water in the manufacture of ?.

---

Presumably if you had just one shower curtain liner that people could buy the manufacturing of all of them would use up the exact same amount of fresh water in its manufacturing as the present seven.

I've already written a post detailing the idea of tax shifting to make industry and consumers pay for the full cost of their activities. It's in the labour and consumption board. If you aren't prepared to acknowledge that, I have no interest in having further discussions with you.

quote:

---

Do we really need another post-nasal drip remedy or Tylenol knock-off ?. What have they been doing with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of consumer purchases every year for decades ?.

---

Same thing. What part of:

quote:

---

think clearly the modern (i.e, in the last 10 years or so) pharmaceutical industry though, is the textbook example of the free market system producing mostly negative results for society.

---

did you not understand?

[ 21 June 2006: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
I would say the free market gives us a huge range of essentially meaningless choices.

---

What's the alternative? Government bureaucrats deciding what paint colors are going to be available, the kinds of clothes we all have to wear, the stove everyone would have to cook on, the type of flooring you can use in the remodeling of your house, the kinds of glasses we need to wear, the kinds of shoes that will be available, the kinds of drapes covering your windows, the kinds of food you can eat, etc., etc., etc.????? The list is endless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
It never occured to me the ball moved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:

Presumably if you had just one shower curtain liner that people could buy the manufacturing of all of them would use up the exact same amount of fresh water in its manufacturing as the present seven.

---

Man o man, do you ever not get it. I wasn't meaning the actual plastic widgets thrown on the capitalist scrap heaps of time when they break, rip or wearout due to built-in obsolescence - I meant should we really be allowing these idiots to be wasting thousands of gallons of fresh water to make a stinking shower curtain liner when there are people right here in Southern Ontario whose tap water is unfit for human consumption? And Walkerton, Ontario is still being advised to boil water from time to time after a conservative party dynasty of 50 years in this province. What about Kashechewan, Ontario?. And Buffalo, Lake, Alberta where Lubicon Cree's have no running water at all ?. There are millions of us who know for a fact that the free market stinks as much as the water in Walkerton Ontario, Adam.

quote:

---

I've already written a post detailing the idea of tax shifting to make industry and consumers pay for the full cost of their activities. It's in the labour and consumption board. If you aren't prepared to acknowledge that, I have no interest in having further discussions with you.

---

Well bully for you. I'm sure the over-bloated multinational conglomerates with annual revenues more than several countries GDP's combined will want to read all about your puny free market ideas for taxing their blue chip dividends and offshore tax shelters, Adam. Here's a tip: the neutron absorbing billionaires and super-wealthiest don't believe in Smithian free market capitalism anymore than I do. I'm sorry to put a damper on your bright eyed enthusiasm for free market capitalism, but there's the way it should be, and then there's the way it is.

The truth is, consumers are already paying an arm and a leg for drugs. There are white powder pills for which U.S. taxpayers paid for the initial discoveries of in publicly-funded research labs and were simply handed-off to big business for profiteering. They are already paying twice for decades old drug discoveries. Resident Dubya's "base" of support are a clique of multinational conglomerates that have little to do with the free market in maintaining their respective monopolies, big pharma included.

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Left Turn, why do you get to decide what is and isn't necessary and who are you to tell everbody else what the best flavour of ice cream is?

---

That's not what I said. What I said is we wouldn't need the false choice of 15 different varieties of vanilla ice cream when the gourmet variety is universally accessible and affordable. I never said anything about not having a full range of ice cream flavours.

By necessary and not necessary, I mean things like tissues with lotion, for example. Nobody really needs this. The company that sells tissues with lotion puts the lotion in there even though it isn't necessary, and then uses advertising to convince the public that their quality of life is somehow dependent on buying these tissues with the lotion. If we had social choice and no advertising for this kind of product, I would be suprised if very many people would want lotion in their tissues.

The tissues with lotion is but one example. There are countless others, but I hope you get the picture.

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:
Adam T wrote:

That's not what I said. What I said is we wouldn't need the false choice of 15 different varieties of vanilla ice cream when the gourmet variety is universally accessible and affordable. I never said anything about not having a full range of ice cream flavours.

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

---

Would the gourmet brand of vanilla ice cream even exist if it were not for competing companies trying to out do each other though?

How would the ice cream company decide how many flavours of ice cream to produce if not for the market? Would we have national by-elections to decide the optimal number of flavours?

Products like pocket calculators or cell phones may not exist right not if it were not for someone sitting in an office somewhere making the individual decision to create these products while hoping they would sell.

quote:

---

Would the gourmet brand of vanilla ice cream even exist if it were not for competing companies trying to out do each other though?

---

That's not relevant. Point is that if we had socialism and social choice, all ice cream could be all-natural if people want it. And it could be at a price that everyone could afford. No more need for fifteen different brands of ice cream with fifteen different prices.

Rambler wrote:

quote:

---

In many cases innovation comes about because one person believes in their idea despite the fact that others don't. If consensus were required to get any project off the ground there would be all kinds of new ideas that would never see the light of day.

---

It's not just about consensus. It's about the people being able to ensure that products that they want, and that make a actual difference in their lives, are always available. Case in point: denim overalls and leather biker jackets are no longer very available. People might want these to be more available, so there would be a democratic way for people to request this, and then the state would provide it. No more of this "oh sorry, it's no longer in style, get over it" crap.

And people might want a say, for instance, in how computer operating systems function. People don't get any say in that from Microsoft and Apple Computers.

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

Stem cells were proven to be extractable from monkeys by a Wisconsin University professor, Dr. James Thomson, whose idea was later picked up for about a million dollars by Geron of Menlo Park, California. And publicly-funded researchers now complain of being hampered by that company's exclusive patents on certain stem cell lines responsible for regeneration of human pancreatic, liver, kidneys and heart cells. When science does learn how to clone human organs, private enterprise will be there feeding at the trough on the backs of taxpayers with a smorgasbord of profiteering.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:
[b]By necessary and not necessary, I mean things like tissues with lotion, for example. Nobody really needs this. The company that sells tissues with lotion puts the lotion in there even though it isn't necessary, and then uses advertising to convince the public that their quality of life is somehow dependent on buying these tissues with the lotion. If we had social choice and no advertising for this kind of product, I would be suprised if very many people would want lotion in their tissues.

The tissues with lotion is but one example. There are countless others, but I hope you get the picture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:
[b]Case in point: denim overalls and leather biker jackets are no longer very available. People might want these to be more available, so there would be a democratic way for people to request this, and then the state would provide it. No more of this "oh sorry, it's no longer in style, get over it" crap.

---

The market is very democratic. If a majority of people wanted denim overalls, you can bet they would be widely available...and in many varieties.

As to leather motorcycle jackets, I'm not sure I understand that example. I'm a biker and find every shape and variety of leather motorcyle jacket available. At the International Motorcycle Show in Minneapolis each there are are leather vendors jamming the place with their goods.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The market is very democratic. If a majority of people wanted denim overalls, you can bet they would be widely available...and in many varieties.

As to leather motorcycle jackets, I'm not sure I understand that example. I'm a biker and find every shape and variety of leather motorcyle jacket available. At the International Motorcycle Show in Minneapolis each there are are leather vendors jamming the place with their goods.

Do people remember when a bagel was just a bagel? Now, you can go to shops and get bagels made with asiago cheese, or sundried tomatoes, or countless other ingredients. It sounds like some posters think that's a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The market is very democratic. If a majority of people wanted denim overalls, you can bet they would be widely available...and in many varieties.

---

Yes, the free market is very good at creating great wealth and pockets of prosperity, Sven. No one is questioning free market capitalism's ability to do those things since Keynes' socialism saved capitalism from itself in the 1930's.

But what about free markets in clean air and drinking water?.

What about a free market in global peace ?. Is predatory capitalism capable of existing without the visible hand of the state intervening on its behalf to confiscate natural wealth from sovereign nations and installing third world puppet regimes by fraudulent elections?.

quote:

---

The Free market limits choice and tends towards monopoly in production and distribution.
Hopefully peak oil will splinter the market and allow local production of niche crops to get a look in again.
Brian

---

I see you live in the Victoria area. That's a fair sized area population wise. If you can't find these things it could well be because you haven't looked very hard. As I mentioned above, have you tried farmer's markets?

I agree with you that distribution can be a problem. There is only so much room on the shelves and stores are obviously only going to sell what sells best.

That said:
1.If you think any other production/distribution system is going to be any better, dream on.

2.Peak oil is going to raise the cost of production for farmers which will likely cause less niche products to be produced, not more.

3.I can't speak about the specific product you are looking for. You may be able to buy it over the internet, for all I know, but, it certainly sounds like Vancouver has greater choice in products than Victoria. Presumably you chose to live/stay in a smaller city like Victoria for the benefits of a lower population. Well, one of the drawbacks of places with smaller populations is less products are available. That is simply a tradeoff you, knowingly or not, chose to make. If you think changing market systems should change that, tell me why the citizens of Vancouver should subsidize your choice of living in a smaller market area?

BTW, I see another half a dozen visitors to this site have decided to become B.C Provincial Liberal supporters after reading Fidel's latest rant.

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

"2.Peak oil is going to raise the cost of production for farmers which will likely cause less niche products to be produced, not more".
I beg to differ.
Peak oil is going to have its greatest effect on distribution costs. So shipping lettuce from california or cheese or chocolate from europe is not going to be too profitable. Even shipping milk from alberta to bc will be too nutty to do anymore. Alberta milk is currently cheaper in the stores than van island milk. (I doubt that alberta cows that are freezing their ears off half the year and sizzling the other half are better producers of milk than island cows in this beautiful climate). There must be a hidden subsidy somewhere.

---

More than likely the Alberta Farms are larger and have efficiencies of scale that allow them lower costs. Either that, or it could be a subsidy.

quote:

---

You defend the "free Market" like a zealot!

---

I'm not trying to defend anything. I've actually made a number of comments here and elsewhere very critical of the free market. I am trying to appraise a situation (your lack of available fresh produce) with logic and explain why that might (or indeed might not) be so, and then use that logic try to figure out what could happen in the future under certain scenarios.

To wit:
[QUOTE]"2.Peak oil is going to raise the cost of production for farmers which will likely cause less niche products to be produced, not more".
I beg to differ.
Peak oil is going to have its greatest effect on distribution costs. "

The more difficult it becomes to ship things around the world, the less choice there is going to be, especially in agriculture.

The point with rising production costs is simply this: any producer attempts to produce to the point where marginal costs equals marginal revenue. The more production costs rise, the less poduction of everything there is going to be.

quote:

---

The market is very democratic. If a majority of people wanted denim overalls, you can bet they would be widely available...and in many varieties.

---

The stores simply arn't stocking denim overalls at this point in time, so even if a majority of people wanted them they would have no way of voicing such a preference. What is being sold is several varieties of distressed, acid wahsed, and crosshatched jeans, and a very few varieties of stonewashed jeans. And Even if the majority of people wanted stonewashed denim, there wouldn't be enough to go around. A lot of acid wahsed, distressed, and crosshatched denim would still be sold, not giving the companies a clue that people don't really want it. What's more, people have been sold the idea that they should want acid wahsed, distressed, and crosshatched denim, and not stonewashed denim, and not denim overalls. Consumers arn't making that choice of their own acord. No, I don't think consumers have much say in the matter. It will be the fashion industry that decides when they will move away from these styles, not consumers.

It's the same in so many other industries. For intstance, consumers may not want Windows as their operating system, but it comes with virtually all non-apple computers, and so consumers are stuck. A few do use Linux, but most don't have the tech savy to learn (or they fear that removing Windows from their computer will void the warranty).

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

quote:

---

Niche products are often a byproduct of necessary crop rotation. Back in the old days prior to globalization and specialization on farms, my da had sheep, cattle to be sold or meat, milking cows, pigs and chickens. He grew peas, beans, sugar beat, wheat and barley for the local factorys. Also, turnips, fodder beet and rye for feeding the animals. now, 30 years later on the larger farm, my bro grows wheet and barley, has cattle for meat, fewer sheep and about 5 hens and no peas, beans or sugar beet because the factorys are gone. The specialization demanded by the "free market" means that he must import feed for the animals in winter and that crops end up in shorter rotations with greater need for pesticides and fertilizer.

---

I agree with you that there is no question corporate agriculture has many negative aspects to it, especially with the use of pesticides and the damage they do to the soil.

I would assume though, if local farmers are no longer growing those things, that most, if not all of that produce is being imported from elsewhere, depending on whether there is a demand for them or not. So, I don't really see much of any reason for any loss of niche products, except, as you mentioned for the handful that may have been grown as part of crop rotation.

It makes sense that if transportation costs rise to the point where it no longer makes sense to import from long distances, that local famers will move back into those markets, assuming that they can't still make more money from exporting whatever they produce.

The obvious thing in all that though, is that prices will rise quite dramatically.

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: Adam T ]

Dickies Stonewash Bib Overalls
Dickies
$40.00
Plus tax & shipping

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
So, alternatively, does anyone seriously believe that government bureaucrats would make better product and services decisions than a free market?

---

If by "government bureaucrats" you mean scientific and social experts paid and hired in the same way as public health officials, with strict conflict of interest codes, ban on private sources of funding and lobbyists, with input from elected representatives monitoring their work -- then the answer is yes, absolutely, how could they possibly do worse than the "free" market which fills our shelves with crap and condemns our society to be divided between rich, poor, and those who aspire to be one and live in fear of being the other?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Those experts would also have to know every firm's technology and every person's preferences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
How else would they know if an allocation was efficient or if it produced what people wanted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
If by "government bureaucrats" you mean scientific and social experts paid and hired in the same way as public health officials, with strict conflict of interest codes, ban on private sources of funding and lobbyists, with input from elected representatives monitoring their work -- then the answer is yes, absolutely, how could they possibly do worse than the "free" market which fills our shelves with crap and condemns our society to be divided between rich, poor, and those who aspire to be one and live in fear of being the other?

---

They (“scientific and social experts”, whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean) could and would do much worse.

Command economics have all been failures, unless you consider the Soviet Union and its satellites as having been the land of plenty. Uh-huh. Cuba? Ditto.

The Chinese get it. They understand that the free market is what going to deliver long-term economic growth and prosperity to their people. And, over the next couple of decades, that understanding is going to solidify and the move towards a free market will rapidly accelerate.

Now, you are correct in stating that free markets do create inequality in wealth. But, as Alexis de Toqueville said in “Democracy in America” (1835): “There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.

I choose the risks of freedom to “equality in slavery”.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
That's a stupid question not least of which is because people, not the "market", make decisions. Further, we do not live in a so-called "free market". We live in a corporate dominated, regulated, and controlled market. The only free market to be found within a 1000 miles is Kensington Market in Toronto and even that is submitting to regulation mostly demanded by corporate interests and lobbyists.

---

I’m sorry, but I don’t think you even understand what a “free market” is. A free market is people making decisions.

I think you earlier criticized, as an example, the “stupidity” of putting lotion in facial tissues. And, if government bureaucrats were deciding what was best for “the people”, you would likely never have seen those products. Like I said earlier, when I have a very bad cold, lotion in tissue is a godsend (otherwise, I don’t use it). Why are tissues like that produced? Because thousands and thousands of people like me see the product offered and want it for the benefits it gives us. And, there are thousands of products and services like that. Otherwise, we have “all-knowing” bureaucrats deciding that is best for “the people” and very little of those things would exist.

You may want to live in a world like that, but most people (thankfully) do not.

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I choose the risks of freedom to “equality in slavery”.

And, that freedom (not only political but economic) is what drives diversity of ideas as well as diversity of products and services.

---

So after you finished your rant, what was your view about Walmart, schools, roads, hospitals, hydro, pharmaceuticals? Slavery vs. freedom?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
So after you finished your rant, what was your view about Walmart, schools, roads, hospitals, hydro, pharmaceuticals? Slavery vs. freedom?

---

1. Computers
2. Veterinary services
3. Liquor
4. Cosmetics
5. Music
6. Furniture
7. Carpeting
8. Graphic arts
9. Shampoo
10. Hotels
11. Cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats and other vehicles
12. Legal services
13. Computer software
14. Body piercing and tattoo services
15. Websites
16. Restaurants
17. Picture frames
18. Insurance
19. Light fixtures
20. Cameras
21. Books
22. Appliances
23. Writing paper
24. Watches
25. Cigars
26. Shoe repair services
27. Recreational drugs
28. Clothing
29. Gas (petrol) stations
30. House-cleaning services
31. Food
32. Loans
33. Hand tools
34. Paint
35. Facial tissues
36. Light bulbs
37. Lawn sprinklers
38. Ice cream
39. Aircraft
40. Houses
41. Photography services
42. Florists
43. Toys
44. Sport leagues
45. Fabrics
46. Candy
47. Stationery
48. Luggage
49. Maps
50. Eye glass frames

quote:

---

The same way governments and publicly owned corporations know where to build roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, hydro lines, where to put traffic lights, what drugs to approve, extend these principles to a whole society.

---

All of these are either public goods (roads, bridges, hydro lines, traffic lights) or public utilites (schools, hospitals).

In the case of hospitals, this really is a place where experts can judge, at least to some degree, what the market will look like, because they can estimate the percentages of diseases and injuries people will get. Even then, there is plenty spent by individuals outside the hospital/medical system, and I'm not referring to people jumping queues.

In the case of schools, many people, including myself, are critical of the more or less 'one size fits all' current model that, ironically seems to be pushed mainly by those on the political right. I and many others would like to see far more charter schools in the public system.

In the case of individual consumer items like computers, if a person needs a specialty computer, like a scientist or a draftsperson, how is the government beaurocrat to know that? Or, even if they do know, why would they care? The usual way it works in a communist system is the civil servant gets graded on the quantity of items they make. Quality and whether they are what the public wants are always incidental concerns.

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
In the case of individual consumer items like computers, if a person needs a specialty computer, like a scientist or a draftsperson, how is the government beaurocrat to know that? Or, even if he does know that, why would they care?

---

I believe this (“why would they care?”) is precisely the reason that China first started to let farmers keep a portion of their production for themselves so that they could sell the produce and meat in individual (capitalist) transactions. The result? Production soared.

As much as many humanist idealists may hate it, people are by nature selfish (not a good or bad thing). Capitalism and the free market take advantage of that human characteristic for the benefit of all. Command economies suck miserably because they ignore that fact of human nature. If there is no personal benefit to producing a specialize computer for a particular segment of people, most bureaucrats will say, “Who the fuck cares?” (if not explicitly, at least through their (in)action).

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
Sven, you could have just quoted Adam Smith

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Sven, most, if not all of the technologically significant items in your list were the result of taxpayer funded research and development, including the very communications protocols enabling you to post such praise for "free market" capitalism. You can thank publicly-funded telephone systems and the top-down command economy of the U.S. military for the internet, "GUI's", RAID drive tech in our PC's, lasers, satellites, importan vaccines and cancer discoveries, stem cell advances in medicine, fiber optics, silicon chips, important metallurgical advances etc etc, were all handed off to a few dozen wealthy families and corporations now referred to as "the market" or private enterprise.

Private enterprise is very good at providing glitz and value added monopolies with what was originally created and owned by the public domain. Capitalists are masters at making workers pay twice for decades old discoveries. Tylenol v.37 anyone ?.

---

I'll take your post to mean that you think the government should be producing all of those products and services (or, at least, deciding who produces what and the quantity and quality of the production).

I'm very happy that the vast majority of people would disagree with you. I'd rather not have the empty shelves of the command economies (who needs more than one kind of toothpaste!!)...

ETA: By the way, Fidel, I don't think that the government has not role in the free market. It has an important role. But, the idea that an alternative to the free market would result in more choice is patently absurd based a comparison of command economies and free market economies.

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

That's oppressive. That's "equality in slavery". It also severly undercuts civil liberties. What does "freedom" mean if you have to work at something government production bureaucrats tell you that you have to do with the majority of your waking hours??

Fuck that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
You can thank publicly-funded telephone systems and the top-down command economy of the U.S. military for the internet, "GUI's", RAID drive tech in our PC's, lasers, satellites, importan vaccines and cancer discoveries, stem cell advances in medicine, fiber optics, silicon chips, important metallurgical advances etc etc, were all handed off to a few dozen wealthy families and corporations now referred to as "the market" or private enterprise.

---

The government can help facilitate basic research. Some of the concepts that are generated from basic research are then additionally researched for practical application (and that's where private enterprise comes in).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
But, as Alexis de Toqueville said in “Democracy in America” (1835): “There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.

---

I think this deliniates a basic difference of philosophy between you and me, Fidel. Inequality, per se, is not evil. And, I'd much rather have freedom with inequality than slavery to sameness with equality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Capitalists are masters at making workers pay twice for decades old discoveries. Tylenol v.37 anyone ?.

---

I love that term "the workers". 99% of people are "workers" and many of those workers are wealthly. Is a surgeon a "worker"? Is an entreprenuer who works 80 hour weeks a worker (even though he's worth ten million dollars)? Is an engineer that works for $150,000 plus stock options a "worker"? Is a politician a "worker"?

quote:

---

The government can help facilitate basic research. Some of the concepts that are generated from basic research are then additionally researched for practical application (and that's where private enterprise comes in). The government doesn't produce phone systems, it doesn't produce vaccines, it does very, very little, other than facilitating basic research at our universities, primarily.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bittersweet:
"Basic research" is hardly very little. In fact, under the system described the government actually does a great deal in both senses of the phrase: it takes public money, applies it to research, then hands over the results to private enterprise to exploit, in both senses of that word. The military-industrial complex is an especially obvious example. Computers, laser technology, etc., etc. It's not at all "some" concepts; there's a long list.

The convenience works like this: Libertarianism applies to the second-stage, the exploitation--when governments don't get to regulate markets in order to benefit the common good--while Conservatism, or whatever else you want to call it, applies to the first-stage siphoning of public funds for private profit. The political terms are meaningless except to offer additional cover--apparently effective ones--to massive and constantly increasing privatization of social investment, a situation that would otherwise seem as brazen as daylight robbery. In this way, people are convinced to let themselves be robbed, while imagining the reality is somehow convenient to them, or will somehow continue to be, say, for their children. Until lately, enough benefits accrued or trickled down to the common good to keep up appearances. However, the system was never sustainable, given the ways of greed, and the logic needed to rationalize it has predictably become ever more pretzel-like and challenging to maintain.

---

A huge portion of public university research is funded by industry. Also, universities license technology developments to industry. It's not like industry simply "takes" everything for free.

With regard to licensing, if a company licenses a university patent for, say, $1 million plus a royalty of 7% of everything the company sells based on that patent (which is a reasonably common license percentage, whether a company is licensing a technology from a university or from another private company), maybe that turns out to be a great deal for the licensing company, but maybe not (particuarly if the market rejects the product). If the company makes a lot of money, then the company "raped" the public good, or so the story goes.

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
The government has in important role in basic research. OTOH, the economy doesn't entirely consist of people doing basic research.

---

Stephen, we know that is especially true in Canada where we have become the laughing stock in the category of direct foreign investment spent on R&D in this country. High technology R&D was an important economic driver for post-war prosperity the U.S and continues to be in other countries.

This is an important commentary by Ralph Nader on the corporate agenda and how publicly funded universities in the states are becoming tools for commercial interests instead of incubators for individual creativity with freedom to pursue betterment of the public good.

quote:

---

Well, let me spell out what commercialism involves. First ofall, it subverts academic freedom. What does that mean? Itmeans that historically physicists talked openly about their discoveries and findings and insights to other physicists onthe faculty staff, or biologists or anyone else who was part of this free exchange—insights, discoveries—it was all common intellectual property. Nobody owned it.Now comes the corporation, and it is the essence of exclusive intellectual property and proprietorship, and the first thing they do is put a piece of paper in front of the professor and say you have to sign this confidentiality agreement, which means that they can confer confidentially with the corporation but not with their colleagues. Do you know how serious that is? That’s not just subverting a luxury. That is subverting the very potential for basic research. It subverts and divides and engages in a lot of acrimony. The president of the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, Nebraska, told me about three years ago that no other law has ever disrupted the relationships between the members of his faculty like that Bayh-Dole Law of 1980,which was signed by President Carter, against my explicit recommendation for a veto, and also, that recommendation by Admiral Hyman Rickover of the US Navy, who thoughtit was a very bad piece of legislation, but it was a strategic maneuver by corporations who wanted property rights and all the taxpayer funded research and development by the US Government, which is massive. ...

The second impact of commercialization is the distortion of the research priorities. You know the drug companieslove to make joint venture with universities, but for lifestyle drugs—drugs that reduce balding, increases virility, fight obesity. Those are real, very lucrative drugs. But drugs for global infectious diseases, like malaria—2 million dead a year around the world; tuberculosis—more than 2 million deaths a year around the world, etc.,—there’s not any money in that. And so when the university allows itself to connect with these kinds of priorities, it distorts the research, the greatest good for the greatest number, and commercializes it in a narrow funnel, determined by the corporate co-partner

There’s also the impact of conflict of interest. Really, can anacademic be true to his or her students if there are all kinds of muzzles and all kinds of investments in commercial arrangements with outside companies, and that has led toan awful lot of conflict at some colleges and universities around the country.It also raises the issue of the nonprofit status of the university. Under the Internal Revenue Act, if a university engages in a commercial venture, it has to pay taxes on the profits. ... But now it’s not that distinct, that these commercial ventures areinterlineated throughout the academic departments. Theyinvolve graduate students, they involved Ph.D. research,they involve moonlighting consulting rather than specific subsidiaries, and I think there’s going to be more challenges along that line, which might compromise the tax-exempt status of these universities. Then perhaps the most important—the university should be dedicated to the growth, nurturing and elaboration of critical thinking. Corporate thinking is quite different than critical thinking. Corporate thinking is extremely disciplined and focused on maximizing profits. The corporate structure of a corporation is very authoritarian. The owners have virtually no say in what happens in the corporation,except to sell their shares. The shareholders long ago havebeen disenfranchised in a rigged electoral system inside the corporation where the officers—the president, CEO andthe board of directors—run the show and pay themselves what they want to pay themselves, and they say to the shareholders, individual or institutional, “You don’t likewhat we’re doing? Sell your shares. Exit.” Not voice, exit. So it’s a very hierarchical, very authoritarian system that measures its activity by one yardstick, and that’s maximizing sales and profits.Now, that’s quite different than the yardsticks that measure a university’s activities.

---

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Market failures exist, and only fundamentalist ideologues refuse to acknowledge them.

But government failures exist as well, and only fundamentalist ideologues refuse to acknowledge them, either.

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
As I said, the govt can play a constructive role in basic research. That doesn't mean it can do better than the market in applying the results of that research in order to produce stuff that people want to buy, at a price they want to pay. In fact, there's a lot of reason to believe that it can't/

---

There is an unwritten rule of capitalism: Public money should never be used to compete with private enterprise. I believe we fought a cold war and spent trillions of dollars on death and destruction industrial complex to "prove" that same point for billions of people, Stephen.

I think that when we have two old line parties funded largely by corporate and banking interests, they're going to do their darndest not to succeed, Stephen. Why do you believe they are under-funding post-secondary education in Canada to the tune of several billion dollars and saddling our public health care system with shortages of family physicians - 500 per year across the country?. Is it to create a sense of public satisfaction with medicare, or is it to undermine their own credibility as administrators of the public good and make a case for privatisation of services ?. And all the while the two old line parties maintain that they want to protect our public system from private hands. Salivating corporate hyenas are waiting in the wings for their friends in government to hack them off a piece of the common good, no doubt.

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

A woman who works with me has, along with her husband, has invested all of their life savings (she's 55 years old) and mortgaged their house on a new business idea. It's been tough sledding. She said that one of their managers had to be let go (she said, "We didn't invest everything we have so that Mr X would have a job"). Although the probability is that they will fail, I hope they succeed and become wealthy.

I agree with you that there is no question corporate agriculture has many negative aspects to it, especially with the use of pesticides and the damage they do to the soil.
I would assume though, if local farmers are no longer growing those things, that most, if not all of that produce is being imported from elsewhere, depending on whether there is a demand for them or not. So, I don't really see much of any reason for any loss of niche products, except, as you mentioned for the handful that may have been grown as part of crop rotation.

It makes sense that if transportation costs rise to the point where it no longer makes sense to import from long distances, that local famers will move back into those markets, assuming that they can't still make more money from exporting whatever they produce.

quote:

---

Perhaps not. With all the wondors of biotech, why are they not breeding bananas that grow in temperate bc? Why are they not making coffee grow here too? and tea? And the reason? because with cheap oil, they can pay 2 cents a day to some poor slave in hati.
Well, if oil was more expensive, the giant slave croppers would quit hati, monsanto would release the temperate zone banana. And the slaves down there could grow stuff for their familys (and it would be a mixture of foods not just bananas).
For those of you who are not farmers, crop rotation is vital to maintaining yields in a low fertilizer and pesticide environment. and that is what we will have when peak oil happens.

---

It's very simple. Prices will rise because production costs will rise.

quote:

---

Well, if oil was more expensive, the giant slave croppers would quit hati, monsanto would release the temperate zone banana. And the slaves down there could grow stuff for their familys (and it would be a mixture of foods not just bananas).

---

Well, I don't know enough about the Haitian situation to comment. But, I do understand our situation well enough.

I don't think you fully appreciate the consequences of what you seem to be favoring.

Obviously trade is dependent on various factors, including the value of the relevant currencies, and not just transportation costs, but lets take what you seem to be favoring to the logical conclusion: transportation costs rise so high that all trade is impossible.

This would mean many people who have jobs in export industries would lose them. It doesn't matter, you say, because they would gain jobs in all areas where we used to import goods. Yes, but think of the massive dislocations that would cause as thousands, if not tens of thousands of British Columbians, would have to be retrained, all at the same time.

You would be dealing with people who aren't experts in their new jobs, so massive efficiencies that used to be gained from trading with people who are experts would all be lost. This would mean massive increases in prices. Obviously the people who would be most harmed by this are the least well off.

As Stockholm would say, you sound like a fairly well off member of the Green Party and not a New Democrat who is concerned about the plight of the poor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
If it's such a no-brainer to take the "tiny" final step of actually commercializing a new idea, discovery or invention, then why do universities or other government organs simply not do it themselves?

---

In fact, I believe this is happening now with small biotech companies. I've read about a number of startups in the states, Osteoscreen is an example, and you can look up Craig Mundy on the web. That company is resisting offers from pharmaceutical giants to takeover the development of some of their drug innovations. The AIDS cocktail of drugs is another example. I believe a small company from Quebec has made one of the most recent contribution to the fight against AIDS. AZT itself was a publicly-funded discovery and handed over to private enterprise.

I've read where small biotechs around the world have contributed to approximately 50 percent of new drug and medical procedure discoveries in the last ten years. Yale and other universities currently collect royalties for important drug discoveries made by their research. Yale students and faculty stepped in to what can only be described as unfair and homicidal free market scenario when Merck refused to offer an antiretroviral AIDS drug at prices affordable to African countries being ravaged by that disease - they demanded Merck give them back rights to the drug.And i believe they did sooner than risk bad PR and attracting too much attention to unbelievably good market successes.

I realize most of us here are aware of the disappointments with big pharma and that conservatives on both sides of the border have acknowledged this fact but are doing very little about 20 and 30 year drug patent protections which they've handed to big pharma since the 1980's. They basically want to monopolize old discoveries and ride the coat tails of public research.

quote:

---

I think it's because the commercialization step is not tiny or simple but very risky. To design and build a plant, integrate production with a distribution system, etc., etc. is very expensive and there is no sure payout (most new businesses fail). Risk capital is the perfect answer. But, if people are going to risk their capital, they want to accrue the benefits.

---

Like Bittersweet mentioned - big corporations, the one's benefitting the most from high priced lobbyists in Washington and now Ottawa since the 80's, tend to want to glom onto old discoveries made in the public domain. The riskiest part of R&D in medicine right now are new drug discoveries. Bayh-Dole is a bad piece of legislation, according to Ralph Nader and others. And so the public is still paying for much of the research into genetic engineering, stem cell research - research that looks promising, according to scientists around the world, but as someone said once, the human body is the last frontier for practical purpose research. There is so much that science hasn't figured out yet in order to make this important and lucrative-to-humanity research payoff. (as opposed to instant discoveries and profits for private enterprise). The public is bearing much of the risk for this academic research being carried out at universities and national institutes of health around the world. Do we really need to dump an important discovery in the laps of profiteers once the most expensive and riskiest end of it bears fruit ?. What about public enterprise ?.

Most new small businesses fail. Multinational conglomerates with more revenues than several third world countries combined have more room for failure. With big pharma as an example, they just don't seem to be taking any risks and are content to reap profits from decades old discoveries and spend significant amounts of money on marketing those old discoveries and spending frivelously on "me too" drugs and marketing the same drugs to provide consumers with questionable secondary health benefits.

quote:

---

A woman who works with me has, along with her husband, has invested all of their life savings (she's 55 years old) and mortgaged their house on a new business idea. It's been tough sledding. She said that one of their managers had to be let go (she said, "We didn't invest everything we have so that Mr X would have a job"). Although the probability is that they will fail, I hope they succeed and become wealthy.

It's hard for governments to do that. If a university lost $20 million on a commerical idea that went bust, the public would raise hell. But, if private parties lose $20 million on an idea they are trying to commercialize, they are the only losers.

---

But that's just it, it's not small business people who are benefitting from Bayh-Dole Act and causing publicly-funded universities to focus on narrow, small business interests. Big pharmas and the military industrial complex are the ones who have pushed and lobbied for a piece of the common good when the fruits of innovation become ripe for picking. Ralph Nader says that that's how the bill was proposed back in the 1980's - that universities and small business would be the beneficiaries of public-private partnerships.

There is no right and wrong when it comes to advocating for different economic systems. There is only a question of values.

Fidel is right from his side when he says that he prefers a system like Cuba where nobody (allegedly) lives in abject poverty and everybody (allegedly) has access to basic needs like health care and education.

Sven is right from his side when he says he doesn't like that system because, while nobody lives in abject poverty, everbody lives in near abject poverty with virtually no consumer goods. I don't think I agree with him that that is 'slavery' (I think that's up for each Cuban to decide for himself), but I agree with him that Cuba basically has a system of forced equality at a point just above abject poverty.

The only thing people aren't entitled to in this debate over values is to not understand the consequences of what is is they say they are in favour of.

They key to properly recognizing the debate is to understand that in all economic systems:
1.you have a series of tradeoffs
2.the tradeoffs operate differently under each system.

In the specific case of the question asked under this thread, when people say that a command economy structure can produce more choice in consumer goods than a free market structure they are simply factually wrong. This is based on both the historical record as well as tested economic theory.

It's similar to what Patrick Moynihan used to say: "Everybody is entitled to their own set of opinions, but they aren't entitled to their own set of facts."

Everyone is entitled to their own values, but they have to properly understand the tradeoffs that those values imply.

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

But that's just it, it's not small business people who are benefitting from Bayh-Dole Act and causing publicly-funded universities to focus on narrow, small business interests. Big pharmas and the military industrial complex are the ones who have pushed and lobbied for a piece of the common good when the fruits of innovation become ripe for picking. Ralph Nader says that that's how the bill was proposed back in the 1980's - that universities and small business would be the beneficiaries of public-private partnerships.

---

I'm not sure that this hasn't happened. There are hundreds of biotechs in Canada. A number of them, like Quadra Logic, are started up by the professors themselves. The founder of Quadra Logic, Julia Levy, was a big supporter of Gregor Robertson in the last provincial election, for what that's worth.

I am well aware that many of them face pressures in various ways from the big pharmas, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of biotechs out there.

I actually agree with Fidel on the broader point, the pharmaceutical industry is a joke.

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
, although Fidel has reported that Cubans have found some ways to farm organically at costs that compete with corporate farming. I have no idea if he is corrrect or not, but we can certainly hope so.

---