Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Commerce Is Not Conquest

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Russell Nelson — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:48:03 -0000

Kent: one way to enforce arguments is by reputation. Why should you believe a contract that anybody signs? A state imposes penalties for breaking a contract, but in fact anybody can do that. The question is: can you collect those penalties? A state uses the threat of violence to lend an air of authority to a contract. In the absence of a state, you would have to rely on the reputation of the other signer of the contract. Or you can have a company which serves as the guarantor of a contract, in return, say, for keeping the interest on a performance bond.

The free market has lots of ways of solving these problems, however as long as the state solves them for "free" (or rather by forcing everybody to pay taxes), there's no profit in devising alternate solutions.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

faultolerant — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:48:45 -0000

Scott,

I'll address your "argument" one step at a time:

I'm not sure how my support of free trade and capitalism translates into being "terribly taken with the chinese" but

nonetheless, who's being self-centric now?

Your consistent defense of all things chinese and snide denigration of any challenges to it certainly do make you look like a patent sino-asskisser. Free trade and capitalism was never the issue. You're free to trade with anyone you like. Calling you for being pro-chinese and anti-american was at issue.

It sounds like your saying you have your standard of living but want to deprive Chinese and Indians from achieving the same.

To assert that I want to "deprive" chinese and indians of anything overstates the case. I am fundamentally indifferent to them. I simply do not believe they deserve any priority treatment at all, of any kind. Unfortunately, that you and your kind seem to be so enamored with cheap labor that you're quite willing to put Americans out of work says more for your hypocracy than anything else.

You may say you care more about your fellow Americans, but I and many libertarians look beyond national borders.

Why? What is there to gain in impoverishing Americans (even temporarily)to the advantage of someone else? Are you so "worldly" that you put the wellbeing of a person half a world away over your neighbor? I'm not quite so willing to throw overboard someone close to me to advantage a people and a culture who have, as their stated goal, the death of me, my family and my culture. It's not exactly what I look for

Besides, wasn't it America's relatively free and capitalistic society in the late 19th/early 20th century that helped get it to where it is today?

And of what relevance is that comment? It's a meaningless comment unrelated to the argument at hand.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Kent Gatewood — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:17:20 -0000

tarran--appreciate the detailed answer. The second question that came to me was how Merck would make an investment decision for drug research with some hope for a monopoly?

The first question was how to enforce contracts without a state? I can see a company repudiating their agreement and daring anyone to stop them.

I'll go off to Mises and see.

Thanks once again

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

tarran — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:50:07 -0000

Kent, there is controversy regarding IP among libertarians. Some, usually minarchists, support it, some, primarily anarchocapitalists, oppose it.

I am opposed to the three flavours of IP.

Let's start with the least defensible: patents.

A patent of monopoly in essence is a monopoly granted an some person or group to be the only ones allowed to sell something. As it requires a central state to issue the patents, anarchists like myself reject them out of hand. The basic idea is that if one person comes up with a new way to arrange matter, he or she should dbe allowed to dictate whether or not other people similarly arrange matter that they own. This is a violation of the physical property rights of these others. They are also harmful from a utilitarian perspective: the steam, automobile and aircraft industries all stagnated while patents were actively enforced within them and underwent explosive growth after the patents were either broken or expired.

The anarchist position on copyrights is more nuanced. In effect, there can be a contractual copyright, but the current system of state enforced copyright are obviously immoral. A contractual copyright would be like a EULA. In essence to copyright owner would require you to agree contractually to not copy or permit copying any copies of the work in question you have received. Obviously, the enforcement of this form of copyright is completely on the shoulders of the content producer.

Similarly, there is a contractual basis for trademarks. In this case though one would have to contract with stores or market owners to enforce one's trademarks.

This is, or course a complex subject. I highly recommend reading some of the stuff that on the Mises Institute website which explore the subject in a great deal of detail. There's a pretty good article that Stephen Kinsella wrote with Walter Block. I cannot point you to a pro-IP libertarian piece, so I leave that task to someone else.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Scott — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:09:11 -0000

faultolerant,

I'm not sure how my support of free trade and capitalism translates into being "terribly taken with the chinese" but

nonetheless, who's being self-centric now? It sounds like your saying you have your standard of living but want to deprive Chinese and Indians from achieving the same. You may say you care more about your fellow Americans, but I and many libertarians look beyond national borders.

Besides, wasn't it America's relatively free and capitalistic society in the late 19th/early 20th century that helped get it to where it is today?

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

faultolerant — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:58:23 -0000

Scott,

Believe me, I was insulting your kind.

If you're so terribly taken with the chinese, I'll make you an offer: 1 one-way ticket on American Airlines from New York to Beijing, coach class. Paid in full. My treat.

See how much you like living in their society - I, for one, am not overly thrilled with ours looking like Peking or Mumbai any time soon.

Care to go? And stay?

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Daniel — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:46:20 -0000

The concern about Chinese car makers, because of cheap labour, invading and conquering the automobile market is atavistic. I don't know the name of the authors or the title, but hasn't someone concluded that labour nowadays represents about 3% of manufactoring costs? A higher percentage of manufacturing cost is in logistics, plus inventory is tied up for a month on a ship. Eventually the Chinese automanufacturers will join the S. Korean, Japanese, and German automanufacturers and open plants closer to their consumers.

In the spirit of globalisation, I used the British spelling of labour and globalisation.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

contrail — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:54:39 -0000

Kent,

Re: your question on IP rights...the silence is deafening, isn't it?

Better to just whitewash any criticism of China as ignorant anti-market hysteria.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Kent Gatewood — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:26:41 -0000

Are there any laws of physics precluding commerce from leading to conquest? Maybe American capitalists are Ferengi, while Chinese capitalists are Klingon. China's real majority owner is the communist party. Combine Chinese nationalism with the communist urge for a universal utopia, and conquest may seem inevitable and gorious from Peking.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

matt — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:13:08 -0000

Ha ha... Scott, good comment. Before I got to it, I admit I also looked up "atavastic" and needed clarification for "amoral" and "immoral".

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

True_Liberal — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:40:36 -0000

Acad R sez: "...All though there are a handful of reporters that understand econ, most do not. What they do understand is how to write dramatically. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any school of journalism that offers a degree in economic or even business journalism."

You could say the same about any technology from aeronautics to underwater sonics - no reporter seems interested in learning the basics.

But they knew how to ask "How does that make you feel?", and how to pronounce "6-week anniversary". J-school ranks right up there with the Schools of Education.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Kent Gatewood — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:31:18 -0000

During the previous dust-up, the intellectual property rights views of libertarians and economists was passed over.

Is there a libertarian position on ipr?

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Scott — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:40:02 -0000

OK, I'll admit some of the words faultolerant used were new to me so I decided to look up them as well as the rest. I'm not sure he was actually insulting us.

"these kinds of people are fundamentally atavastic, atomistic, amoral, immoral, self-centric, egocentric consuming machines."

Atavastic (Atavistic?): one that is suggestive of or suited to an earlier time or style

--[I'll take that as a compliment and I don't think I'm alone in wanting a time before socialism]

Amoral: being neither moral nor immoral

Immoral: conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

--[Not sure how someone can both be amoral and immoral. Besides wouldn't someone who does have traditionally held moral principles be atavistic?]

Atomistic -> Atomism -> Individualism: a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount

Egocentric: concerned with the individual rather than society

--[Kinda speaks for itself]

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Bruce Hall — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:18:31 -0000

An excellent article by Inc. Magazine on ths subject. A bit long, but you may find it more interesting than simple generalizations about competiting with China.

http://www.inc.com/magazine...

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Ryan Fuller — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:17:37 -0000

"Hmm, one non-unionized chinese worker is as productive as a few thousand UAW members, no wonder union members are opposed to free markets."

Good point. :)

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Scott — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:00:01 -0000

"most visitors to these forums are happy to throw away a few thousand UAW members (who, by the lib/econ POV are evil) in favor of just one non-unionized chinese worker."

Hmm, one non-unionized chinese worker is as productive as a few thousand UAW members, no wonder union members are opposed to free markets.

My question to you faultolerant is, if those UAW members are supposed to care as much about me as I'm supposed to about them, shouldn't they work for less than some foreigner worker? Why is it only a one way street? Why is it always that consumers should pay more for "Made in my country" goods, rather suppliers sell for less in the name of national interest?

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

dj superflat — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:33:55 -0000

"You'll not likely ever find a more soulless, morally vapid group assembled in one place."

those are some of the most impressive histrionics i've ever read. so the comments thread here is worse than a collection of SS officers at auschwitz or pol pot and his top lieutenants? than what are you doing here?

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Adron — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:24:30 -0000

People don't know this?!

hmpf. I guess that is why I have to scream a lot at the various companies that I work at when we discuss the economic activity and decisions the respective companies should make.

Hard hard life being an economist! (Fortunately I program for money ;)

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

faultolerant — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:16:25 -0000

Contrail,

Your comment about "intellectual property" won't gain ANY ground in this forum - or for that matter any forum where "economists" and "libertarians" congregate. See, these kind of folks are more than happy to sell off YOUR work and YOUR ideas (or give them away), but are major hypocrites when it comes to THEIR ideas and THEIR work. Yes, they'll hide it behind hoary phrases like "market economy" and "scarcity" - but at the end of the day, these kinds of people are fundamentally atavastic, atomistic, amoral, immoral, self-centric, egocentric consuming machines.

When it comes to economists and libertarians the lowest common denominator is always money and material things. God forbid these folks raise their sights any higher than the local WalMart. More's the pity. Not to mention if you even speak of "poor chinese workers" most visitors to these forums are happy to throw away a few thousand UAW members (who, by the lib/econ POV are evil) in favor of just one non-unionized chinese worker. You'll not likely ever find a more soulless, morally vapid group assembled in one place.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

contrail — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:29:01 -0000

Maybe the story could have added a part on how China routinely turns a blind eye to intellectual property violations, which allows them to negate external competition from hindering their economy, while at the same time placing their goods on the open markets who obey the market rules.

But hey, so long as the US consumers get more choice, that's all that matters.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

bartman — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:35:17 -0000

Gene Berman:

The Chinese already build and export many cars. Here in the UAE I could purchase cars made by Haifei, Geely and Chery, as well as 3 or 4 brands of pick-up truck. My favorite is the Great Wall brand :-)

The Haifei Lobo starts at about $4,000.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Lee — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 02:43:53 -0000

The problem is that most people do not distinguish between constructive forms of competition from destructive.

If you were entering a 100m sprint and wanted to ensure victory, you could conspire to poisen all the other participants the night before the race. You would win, but only because you handicapped the competition.

Rules that prevent such destructive competition ensure that the standards raise year on year, because the only way to beat the competition is to be faster and faster.

Unfortunately, I have found that many without any economics education do not distinguish between the two, and phrases like "market competition" are taken to mean both. Hence the comparison of market competition to conquering, war and destruction.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

gary lammert — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:43:22 -0000

Even without Chinese entry into the American market, GM is near the end of its road. Its final apogee of valuation matches the Wilshire Fractal Maximum saturation pattern on 24 November 2006:

16 October 06

LIMIT UP

Wednesday 18 October 2006 - DAY 372 of a 159/398/372 of 398

Maximum 2003-2006 X/2.5X/2.5X Growth Fractal

On the previous EF posting on this weekend, the fractal saturation

solution for the Wilshire's 2002-2006 echo three- phase growth fractal

was delineated. A smarter fractalist might have been able to delineate

the big picture pattern in May 2005 - after the end of the Wilshire's

second growth fractal. The x/2.5x/2.5x patterns were already there

with a 40/100/100 rolling fractal to the 5 January 2005 top. For this

extremely myopic fractalist, 97 percent of the elephant's picture had

to be drawn in large bold and black letters, before the whole elephant

could be imaged - pretty bad and not much to be said for personal

gestalt or analytical abilities. Day 398 of the third fractal is the

ideal final day of maximum saturation.

A personal basic flaw in interpretation of valuation fractals for the

last four years has been in viewing the fractal system predominantly

in the context of an the expected 140 year plus second fractal

saturation collapse. This has been continuously reinforced with a

number of recurrent lower order ideal 2.5x second fractal units with

their characteristic terminal punctuation of nonlinear decay. Missed

was the equally important recurrent theme of three phase quantum

x/2.5/2.5x maximum growth fractal. This X/2.5X/2.5X maximal growth

pattern also occurred in a recurrent theme throughout the last 4 year

evolution.

What lies at the end of the third fractal's maximal growth? Is it a

slow unwinding or is it a profound cataclysmic macroeconomic collapse

reflecting the extent of over valuation and over saturation of a

6-year predominantly debt-driven illusive asset wealth phenomena that

characterizes the new manufacturingless United States?

One thing is true and not arguable. All Congressional Budget Office

formulas and equation's regarding the longevity and viability of US

(and state and local) entitlement programs are based on a linear 2-3

percent GDP growth model. What would happen to that model if a

contraction occurred equal to or much worse than the 40-45 percent

contraction of GDP in the 1930's?

Commodities: LIMIT UP

As predicted on the week-end posting, the CRB was ... limit up on

Monday 16 October. Treasuries fell with the yield up to 49.30, with an

inversion of yield over the thirty year of .11 percent.

Investment money will, over the next 5-6 weeks, temporarily exit the

bond market, drive commodity- especially grain- prices up and support

higher equity prices. At the Wilshire's secondary saturation point -

secondary to its March 2000 high - at 159/398/398 days, the system's

available investment money will have been optimally 'self assembled'

into both a maximally saturated summation index composing the sum of

the commodity and equity markets. At the system's saturation point,

interest rates will be higher reflecting that particular investment

area's transiently exiting funds (and higher commodity prices). Higher

interest rates will cast gloomy shadows over those recent real estate

speculators and those otherwise recently acquiring mortgages in the

over supplied housing market.

Qualitatively, these are the ideal conditions for a very old, very dry

and decayed forest to be ignited and consumed, No external events such

as lightening are necessary for collapse at the macroeconomic

saturation area. The activation energy exists within the complex

system at the saturation point. Like oily rags and gasoline

inappropriately stored in the attic on the hottest of summer days,

spontaneous combustion will occur.

Gary Lammert

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

LongTimeReader — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:09:12 -0000

Don: This is the best thing you've ever published on this blog.

Re: Commerce Is Not Conquest

Cam — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:47:13 -0000

I would've also mentioned that these Chinese cars will be made by resourceful Chinese engineers and workers. On top of providing good prices to Western consumers, exporting cars will help generate further wealth for the Chinese people.

Not to mention that in the long-run, Western workers and capital will be shifted to more productive industries, assuming the government lets them.