Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 37 posts ] 
Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption
Author Message
IlikemustardUser avatarPosts: 99Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:44 am

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

Aught3 wrote:Well the US, for example, has traditionally run a protectionist economy. By keeping their industries isolated from outside competition they were able to become an economic superpower. Only after the US became a dominant market force did the rhetoric about how great free trade was start. It does make me suspicious that free trade with the US would only be good for the US, not for anybody else.


I'm not sure how isolating your economy from the rest of the world makes it stronger. Look up the Corn Laws for example. By forcing Irish citizens to only buy grain (corn refers to grain, not maize in this context) grown locally, it forced peasant farmers to live off potatoes they grew themselves, as anything else was far too expensive. When the potato virus came about, they all died of starvation, not because there wasn't enough to eat, but because they couldn't afford it.

If there were no tariffs on importing grain, the cost would have been dramatically lower, and the famine would have been much less severe.

Also, I don't know who is saying that free trade is only good for the USA. Far east asia, as well as Russia, is rapidly catching up to the USA in economic power now that they have reformed into capitalist societies. Except for North Korea, whose economy is lagging far behind. North Korea doesn't practice free trade.
Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:48 am
IlikemustardUser avatarPosts: 99Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:44 am

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

One more point I would like to make in regards to water - Why are most people willing to pay up to 10,000 times more for bottled water, rather than drinking tap water?

Clearly price is a non-issue.
Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:36 pm
Aught3ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 4290Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:36 amLocation: New Zealand Gender: Male

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

Ilikemustard wrote:I'm not sure how isolating your economy from the rest of the world makes it stronger.
That's not what a protectionist economy is. The aim is to discourage imports and encourage exports by domestically owned businesses. Should be fairly self-evident a protectionist economy (that doesn't suffer from a random potato blight) would encourage economic growth. Just look at the US.
Wanderer, there is no path, the path is made by walking.
Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:03 pm
WWW
ArthurWilbornPosts: 964Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:46 pm

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

Aught3 wrote:
Ilikemustard wrote:I'm not sure how isolating your economy from the rest of the world makes it stronger.
That's not what a protectionist economy is. The aim is to discourage imports and encourage exports by domestically owned businesses. Should be fairly self-evident a protectionist economy (that doesn't suffer from a random potato blight) would encourage economic growth. Just look at the US.


You mean like how protectionism, combined with strong unions, destroyed the auto industry in the US?
Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:52 am
Aught3ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 4290Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:36 amLocation: New Zealand Gender: Male

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

ArthurWilborn wrote:You mean like how protectionism, combined with strong unions, destroyed the auto industry in the US?
I'm not even going to bother checking whether this statement is accurate. What I want to know is if you really think that one example counter acts the growth of the US economy over all?
Wanderer, there is no path, the path is made by walking.
Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:16 am
WWW
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

Ilikemustard wrote:So your entire argument here rests on the assumption that citizations in Latin America have less access to water? So your entire argument will crumble if I prove otherwise?

No, and that part of the argument is more directed at how private industry can put pressure on governments regardless of whether or not government steps in with regulations that companies must follow.

Before I continue, I must admit to a fault. I had in my mind the example of privatization gone wrong and without government provocation somewhere in Latin America. But I could not remember the exact location or whether or not it was happening in more than one place. For the sake of expediency I blanketed the whole of Latin America with this problem. That is my error and such is not the case. The incident I was really thinking about was more specific. It was actually a case in Bolivia.
In Bolivia, there was fear of a monopoly. Bechtel was being given broad control over water, people could not afford the rate hikes on the water, delinquent households were seized, and things turned violent there. Those studies are all well and good for Chile and I'm glad things seemed to work out.

Ilikemustard wrote:You seem to think that private water firms are going to hoard water for themselves, or some such.

By "them" I meant agribusiness and other businesses dependent on water that can pay for it. And I never said "hoard". Simply that people like the ones who could not afford the rate hikes would get left out.

Ilikemustard wrote:Even though your argument is now nullified, let's continue.

Oddly enough however, the info you brought up here serves my position better than yours.
Your Chilean Example had government subsidies for households to afford the rate hikes and had a large government regulatory agency put in place (which you quoted somehow without even flinching). So even though there is privatization, there is regulation. A far cry from your "free market". So It would seem that they had some proper government intervention prior to their new regulated market, and have some nice statistics to boast on about too. None of this has "free market" written on it.

Ilikemustard wrote:First, it allows water to be allocated according to supply and demand. I don't really want to explain basic economics, but I guess I have to. If you allow a monopolistic agency to dictate how a resource is distributed, it leads to misallocation of resources.

And how do you stop monopolies in a system with no fair rules?

Ilikemustard wrote:They have to guess how much the economy wants, which can either lead to too much or too little being produced. Private firms enter a market when there is a profit to be made - If there is too little supply there will be high demand, and therefore higher prices, giving firms incentive to produce more.

"¦.Or to gouge and keep people trapped in dependency of their product"¦big oil says Hello.

Ilikemustard wrote:If there is too much supply there will be low demand, therefore prices will be lower, and firms will have incentive to stop producing as much otherwise their resources will not sell and will go to waste without the firm making a profit. This is why socialist regimes are inefficient - they either create a lot of resources that nobody wants, or a bunch of people are left in desire of resources they can't get. This is because their revenue is generated through taxes, so it doesn't matter whether their system is profitable, they always come out ahead, so they're able to be inefficient and get away with it.
This is not only bad for the economy, but when you apply it to something as important as water, bad things happen. If you don't produce enough, people die of thirst. If you produce too much, a lot of water is wasted, and I'm sure the leftists on this board would be adamantly opposed to wasting water. Here's one example of why socialised water leads to wasteage - If you're not paying in full for the water you use, then you have no incentive to ration it. You can take long showers, accidentally leave the tap on, wash your car twice a week, and it will result in almost no repercussions for you. This is why the state has to spend money on campaigns to combat water wasteage, and it would all be solved if you just privatized water. If you are paying in full for your water, then you're not going to use more than you need.

Okay, all jabbing aside"¦ Yes, there are apparent benefits to be had, but again, they aren't limited to your free market system. Also mixing social elements into it does have benefits as well. How much to socialize depends on the nature of the service however. From a public option in health care -- as people's lives are at stake -- to shoe manufacturing which may require nothing but adherence to employee safety standards, waste management, and a minimum wage.

Ilikemustard wrote:Are you against the drug war?

Yes.

Ilikemustard wrote:Is it because you don't like the state telling people what they can do with their own body? Do you dislike it when the state tries to protect people from themselves?

Yeah sure"¦ and prohibition doesn't work. So you might as well have the government ensure relative safety on certain products for consumption. So that we can better prevent things like E-coli outbreaks, mad cow disease"¦.you know"¦ 'cause germs and viruses don't care if you are stupid or smart.

Ilikemustard wrote:That's exactly what this is. People are too stupid to not put things in their body that haven't been inspected by a third party. This may sound harsh to you, but I don't want to pay taxes in order to prevent stupid people from harming themselves. If someone started playing with a snake, was bitten and then died, would you think they deserved it, or would you call for a state regulation on playing with snakes to protect people from themselves?

To my knowledge, snakes don't spread diseases that could spread widely through most of a country nor is "playing with snakes" a leading cause of death for Americans"¦surprisingly enough.
Ilikemustard wrote:Here's how it would work in an intelligent society: The meat sellers would pay a private firm to inspect their product, and then if it passes their inspection it would be stamped with the third party firm's seal, or watermark. This would let consumers know that the product is safe for consumption. If people choose to buy products that don't have a watermark from an inspection firm, it is their fault if they contract some horrible disease. I know what you're thinking, what's stopping the meat sellers from paying off the inspection firm to put their watermark on their meat without inspection?
a) That conclusion assumes it would be more profitable to pay off the inspection firm and sell bad meat than sell good meat


In the climate where instant profit takes precedence to many business leaders (many of them who hoot and holler about free markets BTW), I wouldn't put it past them.

Ilikemustard wrote:b) The inspection company has a reputation to uphold. If it is found that they passed a product without inspection, or that a faulty product got past their inspection, people will not trust them anymore, and so companies will no longer go to that firm for inspection, as people are not going to buy a product that has the seal of an untrusted inspection firm.

Reputation is also extremely dependent on public image. You flood TV with ads, buy a few Faux News anchors, get a few Republicans to cry and confess their love for you, and sue Oprah for speaking ill of your industry, maybe even change your logo, give it a little time and watch your image problem disappear.

Ilikemustard wrote:Actually I said the exact opposite. Markets became more free and as a result the west experienced an economic boom.

Yeah, actually you did.

Ilikemustard wrote:Yeah, pretty much. Would like to go join Mao and his communist buddies, and kill around 40,000,000 people.


You take me out of context -- I'll do the same.

I always get a kick out of you raging over reactive types. I just want to balance some of this free market anarchy with some social programs. But you can't help foaming up at the mouth in a rage as you irrationally toss me in with the likes of mass murderers. Just like the religious zealot does to atheists...
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:08 am
ArthurWilbornPosts: 964Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:46 pm

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

Aught3 wrote:
ArthurWilborn wrote:You mean like how protectionism, combined with strong unions, destroyed the auto industry in the US?
I'm not even going to bother checking whether this statement is accurate. What I want to know is if you really think that one example counter acts the growth of the US economy over all?


Protectionism is usually narrowly focused on a few industries. Automobiles are simply the most visible example in the last century.
Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:03 am
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

ArthurWilborn wrote:Protectionism is usually narrowly focused on a few industries. Automobiles are simply the most visible example in the last century.


Usually

As in not an inevitability or an intrinsic characteristic.
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Last edited by televator on Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:20 am
ArthurWilbornPosts: 964Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:46 pm

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

televator wrote:
ArthurWilborn wrote:Protectionism is usually narrowly focused on a few industries. Automobiles are simply the most visible example in the last century.


Usually


http://people.brandeis.edu/~zamborsk/Ho ... ionism.pdf
Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:23 am
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

I'm not going to download something from a random link. What is it? A propaganda package?
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:27 am
Aught3ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 4290Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:36 amLocation: New Zealand Gender: Male

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

televator wrote:I'm not going to download something from a random link. What is it? A propaganda package?
No just a red herring. It's just about the different costs that can be associated with imposing quotas and tariffs and so on. Mildly interesting if you like economic graphs (which I do) but ultimately irrelevant as far as I can tell.
Wanderer, there is no path, the path is made by walking.
Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:36 am
WWW
ArthurWilbornPosts: 964Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:46 pm

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

Aught3 wrote:
televator wrote:I'm not going to download something from a random link. What is it? A propaganda package?
No just a red herring. It's just about the different costs that can be associated with imposing quotas and tariffs and so on. Mildly interesting if you like economic graphs (which I do) but ultimately irrelevant as far as I can tell.


It details how protectionism tends to be focused on a few industries. Also, it shows that protectionism has steep costs both for the protected market and the world at large.
Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:55 am
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

Poor lrkun's original topic... :cry:
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:15 am
ArthurWilbornPosts: 964Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:46 pm

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

televator wrote:Poor lrkun's original topic... :cry:


Like most idealists, she's overstating her case. Secondary economies like this have always existed, although the internet does make them a lot easier. Humans have a need for community, yes, but we also have a need for possession; a lot of people would have trouble not having access to their items at all times, or permitting someone else to use them. I don't doubt these programs will exist and have minor popularity, but I don't see them as the revolution she does.
Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:41 am
IlikemustardUser avatarPosts: 99Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:44 am

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

televator wrote:people like the ones who could not afford the rate hikes would get left out.

But I've already shown that they didn't get left out. In fact I remember reading in one of those wikipedia pages that a poor village that had no access to water when it was state controlled was able to access clean water after it was privatized.

televator wrote:Your Chilean Example had government subsidies for households to afford the rate hikes and had a large government regulatory agency put in place (which you quoted somehow without even flinching). So even though there is privatization, there is regulation. A far cry from your "free market". So It would seem that they had some proper government intervention prior to their new regulated market, and have some nice statistics to boast on about too. None of this has "free market" written on it.

I was never arguing that their water supply was entirely free market without regulation. Your argument was that corporations "manipulated the government" into privatizing water, and that this was somehow a bad thing. I've shown that it wasn't, and that by making the water supply market more free it has in fact increased efficiency and supply.

televator wrote:And how do you stop monopolies in a system with no fair rules?

First, monopolies don't form in a free market. A good example I have read of why they don't is that as they get bigger, the cost of buying out the market increases. If companyA's competitors see companyA trying to become a monopoly, they know they can charge much higher prices when companyA tries to buy them out. If companyA owns 95% of the market, and you are one of the last few competitors, you know you can charge incredibly high prices for companyA to buy you, as there aren't many other companies you are competing with in stock price.
Not only this, but companyA is continually faced with new competition springing up. The more monopolistic a company becomes, the less competition they face, and the more inefficient they are able to become. This means it is in fact easier to compete with them, so people begin investing in firms that are in competition.

So what creates monopolies? Absolutely 100% state intervention, through regulation and subsidies. Let's take AT&T as an example, why do they have such a large share of the market?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund
By 1913, AT&T had favored status from U.S. government, allowing it to operate in a noncompetitive economic environment in exchange for subjection to price and quality service regulation. The government asserted that a monopolistic telephone industry would best serve the goal of creating a "universal" network with compatible technology country wide for telephone consumers.

http://2parse.com/?p=4125
AT&T, now safe from monopoly concerns, immediately lobbied the postmaster general to allow it to raise rates significantly, which under normal circumstances would have triggered concern about monopolistic abuse of power. But, as a government entity during a time of war, AT&T was given this allowance: AT&T raised its rates 20% in the first half year under government control. In addition, the government decided to compensate the company with $13 million "to cover any losses they may have incurred, despite the fact that none were evident"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postte ... ral_a.html
AT&T and Verizon Communications were the biggest recipients of federal support from an $8 billion phone subsidy program


How can smaller businesses be expected to rise up and compete with giants that receive so much support from the state?


televator wrote:"¦.Or to gouge and keep people trapped in dependency of their product"¦big oil says Hello

You are not trapped in dependency of oil. It's just that it's a cheaper fuel resource than any others that are available. When it begins to run out, its price will go up and other resources will be more profitable to use.

If you want to blame anyone for causing you to be dependent on oil, blame the state, which subsidizes oil companies.
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.c ... -Subsidies

televator wrote:From a public option in health care -- as people's lives are at stake --

Food is more important to people's lives than health care. Without food, we die. Why don't you socialise food? That's right, it causes famines.

televator wrote:So that we can better prevent things like E-coli outbreaks, mad cow disease"¦.you know"¦ 'cause germs and viruses don't care if you are stupid or smart.

You need to be stupid to eat beef infected with mad cow disease. Once again, it's a simple case of making sure it has been inspected by a refutable inspection firm.

televator wrote:Reputation is also extremely dependent on public image. You flood TV with ads, buy a few Faux News anchors, get a few Republicans to cry and confess their love for you, and sue Oprah for speaking ill of your industry, maybe even change your logo, give it a little time and watch your image problem disappear.

There are multiple things wrong with this argument.

a) It assumes it would be more profitable to buy out media than it would be to actually inspect products. Because apparently buying out media is super-cheap these days?
b) It ignores the fact that inspection firms are in competition - If one inspection firm can buy out media, others can too. If it is found that firmA is being dodgy and not inspecting products properly, what is stopping firmB from buying out media to tarnish firmA's image and let people know that it is not a trustable firm?
c) It assumes that buying out media will thoroughly cover up the issue. The internet is most definitely going to make sure their bad practice is known about. Activists, too, are always handy in raising awareness, as they have done so many times in the past.
d) You stated at the end "give it a little time"... What are you doing in this time? Not making any profit? When your image problem 'disappears', are you going to do it all over again, then spend a boatload of cash on buying out media, then spend a while getting no revenue at all? How is this a profitable business model?

televator wrote:But you can't help foaming up at the mouth in a rage as you irrationally toss me in with the likes of mass murderers. Just like the religious zealot does to atheists...


Have you never used the crusades as an argument against theists? The fact that theism creates irrational fear of others to the point where it incites violence is a very valid argument, just as the argument that communism creates famine is also valid.
By the way, do I really seem like I'm foaming at the mouth with rage? I thought my arguments were being communicated quite calmly... :(


Sorry Irkun, I'll stop arguing now if you want.

I don't agree with your video when it comes to large scale economies. It is how we worked in tribal times, but you can't really implement it when billions of people are involved.
Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:41 am
IlikemustardUser avatarPosts: 99Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:44 am

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

I just noticed you changed what I said in your quote quite subtly.

Original quote:
Ilikemustard wrote:Would you like to go join Mao and his communist buddies, and experience a famine that killed around 40,000,000 people?


What you quoted:
Ilikemustard wrote:Would like to go join Mao and his communist buddies, and kill around 40,000,000 people.


Thus implying that my problem with Mao is that he was a thug who killed people directly, not that my problem is with Communism itself, which is what caused the famine that killed those people.

Why'd you do that?
Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:29 am
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Rachel Botsman: The case for collaborative consumption

Ilikemustard wrote:But I've already shown that they didn't get left out.

Not for Bolivia, no.

Ilikemustard wrote: I was never arguing that their water supply was entirely free market without regulation. Your argument was that corporations "manipulated the government" into privatizing water, and that this was somehow a bad thing. I've shown that it wasn't, and that by making the water supply market more free it has in fact increased efficiency and supply.

And now that I've clarified I've shown how it did turn out bad for Bolivia.

Ilikemustard wrote:First, monopolies don't form in a free market. A good example I have read of why they don't is that as they get bigger, the cost of buying out the market increases. If companyA's competitors see companyA trying to become a monopoly, they know they can charge much higher prices when companyA tries to buy them out. If companyA owns 95% of the market, and you are one of the last few competitors, you know you can charge incredibly high prices for companyA to buy you, as there aren't many other companies you are competing with in stock price.
Not only this, but companyA is continually faced with new competition springing up. The more monopolistic a company becomes, the less competition they face, and the more inefficient they are able to become. This means it is in fact easier to compete with them, so people begin investing in firms that are in competition.

So what creates monopolies? Absolutely 100% state intervention, through regulation and subsidies. Let's take AT&T as an example, why do they have such a large share of the market?

What you are presenting is nothing but hypotheticals under idealistic conditions. These aren't situations that take into account reality of human behavior in an environment as sterile as the stock market -- the piranha like nature of shareholders in a frenzy of heightened emotions and the apathy of company leaders who get their fat bonuses regardless of how successful they are.
Also the bulk of "state intervention" in the form of regulation was a slow and long process in the US. Guess what we had before that? Monopolies.

Ilikemustard wrote:Food is more important to people's lives than health care. Without food, we die. Why don't you socialise food? That's right, it causes famines

I've never been talking about exclusive socialization of everything under the sun. Besides, there are already social provisions to make food more affordable. We give people food stamps for instance.

Ilikemustard wrote:You need to be stupid to eat beef infected with mad cow disease.

"¦.or be invited over for dinner at grandma's house. Again, your ideal scenarios falter.

Ilikemustard wrote:There are multiple things wrong with this argument..... **more idealistic faith in the self-regulatory capacity of the "free market"**

You say there are things wrong with the argument, but it still manages to be true. The meat industry did sue Oprah. Blackwater did change their name and logo. BP did run ad campaigns and did have republican politicians and Faux News groveling at their feet.

Ilikemustard wrote:Have you never used the crusades as an argument against theists? The fact that theism creates irrational fear of others to the point where it incites violence is a very valid argument, just as the argument that communism creates famine is also valid.

Theism is theism. You're either a theist or something else"¦ Attacking communism or slandering me with it is an invalid argument.

Ilikemustard wrote:By the way, do I really seem like I'm foaming at the mouth with rage? I thought my arguments were being communicated quite calmly...

Hmmm"¦Here in the US, implying that someone is a Maoist or a Stalinist, etc"¦. is a classic attempt to stir up negative emotion against people who disagree with you. It is a way to fear monger. Go on youtube and watch some tea party rallies some time. Speaking of whom, those guys are all over the free market bandwagon, but it never crossed my mind to resort to calling you one of them.

Ilikemustard wrote:Thus implying that my problem with Mao is that he was a thug who killed people directly, not that my problem is with Communism itself, which is what caused the famine that killed those people.
Why'd you do that?

Because you did this:
televator wrote: "free" market is the only way to attain a high standard of living for the West

Implying that I think "free market is the only way to go""¦
One made up/cherry picked quote for another, is all it is.
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:12 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 37 posts ] 
Return to Business & Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest