I have a simple question about bank deregulation.

[BigDH01]

That may be the one exception, and it would depend on the circumstances. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Patent laws?

 

[bamacre]

Patent laws?

What about them? You'd need to be more specific.

 

[BigDH01]

What about them? You'd need to be more specific.

Do you think the government should regulate the market in such a way to grant monopoly power to inventors for any amount of time?

 

[sandorski]

No, and never said that.

Well then, consult a History book and learn why they exist.

 

[bamacre]

Well then, consult a History book and learn why they exist.

Perhaps you should.

 

[bamacre]

Do you think the government should regulate the market in such a way to grant monopoly power to inventors for any amount of time?

Government granting monopoly power to investors? Care to elaborate on what you mean here? Maybe an example?

 

[jackstar7]

Government granting monopoly power to investors?

He said inventors.

 

[sandorski]

Perhaps you should.

I have, your turn.

 

[BigDH01]

Government granting monopoly power to investors? Care to elaborate on what you mean here? Maybe an example?

Inventors.

Sure, I invent something original, I patent it, and the government says that no one else may produce my invention without my permission.

 

[bamacre]

Inventors.

Sure, I invent something original, I patent it, and the government says that no one else may produce my invention without my permission.

Ok, inventors not investors. :$

This is a good example actually, but unfortunately, it depends on the situation, what exactly is being patented. I think we can all agree that government has allowed too much to be patented.

 

[BigDH01]

Ok, inventors not investors. :$

This is a good example actually, but unfortunately, it depends on the situation, what exactly is being patented. I think we can all agree that government has allowed too much to be patented.

But you do agree that the government should grant monopoly power for some amount of time to inventors.

What about regulations concerning externalities imposed on some uninvolved 3rd party?

 

[bamacre]

But you do agree that the government should grant monopoly power for some amount of time to inventors.

It is not "granting" anything. In this case, it would be "protecting." By using the word "granting," you imply "giving." Very different.

What about regulations concerning externalities imposed on some uninvolved 3rd party?

You mean like Japanese cars imported into the US being required to have seat belts? I don't know, if this wasn't the case, would you buy a Japanese car without seat belts?

 

[BigDH01]

It is not "granting" anything. In this case, it would be "protecting." By using the word "granting," you imply "giving." Very different.

It is granting. The government is using its monopoly of force to ensure that an actor has no competition for some set time in the market. Surely, in the circle you follow, you've seen people promote a system where patents are never granted and the inventor has to put in more effort protecting the secret of their invention.

Unless you think that completely free markets inherently give people monopolies over products that are easily copied and reproduced, I think grant is the correct word.

You mean like Japanese cars imported into the US being required to have seat belts? I don't know, if this wasn't the case, would you buy a Japanese car without seat belts?

More like the case of someone selling their land to a factory owner who then pollutes land that was not their's leading to a Coasian bargaining situation in which the outcome (depending on the size and complexity) will almost certainly be more costly than the alternative. Or, as seen often in my wife's profession, a situation in which a landowner sold their land to a chemical factory who then poisoned the local water supply and went bankrupt. Should regulation be in place to ensure that these sorts of costs are accounted for before the act?

 

[bamacre]

It is granting. The government is using its monopoly of force to ensure that an actor has no competition for some set time in the market. Surely, in the circle you follow, you've seen people promote a system where patents are never granted and the inventor has to put in more effort protecting the secret of their invention.

Unless you think that completely free markets inherently give people monopolies over products that are easily copied and reproduced, I think grant is the correct word.

Part of a free market is government protecting private property. Otherwise you have anarchy, which is not what I am proposing.

More like the case of someone selling their land to a factory owner who then pollutes land that was not their's leading to a Coasian bargaining situation in which the outcome (depending on the size and complexity) will almost certainly be more costly than the alternative. Or, as seen often in my wife's profession, a situation in which a landowner sold their land to a chemical factory who then poisoned the local water supply and went bankrupt. Should regulation be in place to ensure that these sorts of costs are accounted for before the act?

It's not needed. Private property rights solves that problem. If a company, any company, damages anothers' property, then it can be sued for damages, even the city could sue on behalf of its citizens. Or, we can have a government with the authority to limit the amount of those damages, like the case with BP. I need to also add that what you're describing above is murder, if people died from poisoned drinking water. The owners of that company should be held accountable criminally in addition to the legal civil matters. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind local gov't using regulations to prevent these kinds of situations.

 

[BigDH01]

Part of a free market is government protecting private property. Otherwise you have anarchy, which is not what I am proposing.

How is it not my private property if I look at what you did and then using my own labor and materials make a copy of it?

It's not needed. Private property rights solves that problem. If a company, any company, damages anothers' property, then it can be sued for damages, even the city could sue on behalf of its citizens.

I think we should go ahead and give you the Nobel Prize now for proving that the transactional costs involved in Coasian bargaining are irrelevant. We'll just forget the fact that Coase himself said there is a reason his theorem often wouldn't work in the real world for this very reason.

Or, we can have a government with the authority to limit the amount of those damages, like the case with BP.

Which would happen anyway. Did you not read my bankruptcy statement above?

I need to also add that what you're describing above is murder, if people died from poisoned drinking water. The owners of that company should be held accountable criminally in addition to the legal civil matters. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind local gov't using regulations to prevent these kinds of situations.

Well, at least we now agree that government can use regulations in a manner to actually reduce the aggregate costs to society. So, let's see...

we now have government regulations concerning:

- monopolies
- patent laws
- externalities

What about a case of massive information inequality between two market parties? Should we have disclosure laws?

 

[Fern]

How is it not my private property if I look at what you did and then using my own labor and materials make a copy of it?
-snip-

I may be wrong, but I'm under the assumption that what you propose is OK.

The rules kick-in when you do that, not for your own purpose, but to sell to others.

But you seem to be denying that ideas are private property. I cannot agree with that.

Fern

 

[BigDH01]

I may be wrong, but I'm under the assumption that what you propose is OK.

The rules kick-in when you do that, not for your own purpose, but to sell to others.

Some libertarians, trending closer to anarchy, take issue with this. Why is this inherently wrong if I can do it better (aka, cheaper and in greater quantities) than you? If you want to protect your ideas, you should take steps to do so such as making your widget very hard to reverse engineer.

Not saying I agree with that assessment, but the argument has been made.

But you seem to be denying that ideas are private property. I cannot agree with that.

I don't know how you can believe otherwise. If you come up with an idea for a new widget and build it, you have knowledge of the widget. If you then sell the widget to me and I disassemble and reverse engineer it so that I also have intimate knowledge of the widget, is my knowledge, the thought in my head, your private property?

I agree with reasonable patent laws, but purely as a way to incentivize innovation. I've never been under the belief that patent laws exist as a means to protect knowledge as someone's private property.

 

[Darwin333]

here's a question: would the regulations in place absolutely have stopped the melt down last year? i see it discussed as a matter-of-fact but i've never seen anyone say just what regulations that had existed would have prevented the crap from hitting the fan (and of course, there's also the question of where are we compared to had the regulations not been rolled back... what if we're still better off, even with the crap hitting the fan?)

Yes.

Removing Glass-Steagall was a major component in allowing the shit to hit the fan. Reinstating it would do more to prevent it from happening again than everything done so far combined (which has been damn near nothing).

Unfortunately, the banksters own both parties so its not even on the table in any significant way.

The next major component would be to enforce existing law. You know those obscure ones like fraud, frontrunning, insider trading, market manipulation, perjury, bribery, etc... It appears that Wall Street is like kryptonite to the "cops".

 

[Darwin333]

Oh, please. In 2003, BushCo just wanted to change the GSE regulators, not actually reform the system. Repubs had the majority in both houses, and it never got out of committee. As it was, repub lawmakers just used it to establish plausible deniability, something you apparently embrace wholeheartedly.

And it wasn't the GSE's that caused the meltdown, but rather the investment banks-

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

Enabled by a SEC rule change in 2004 requested by the biggest investment houses, wiht Paulson as head of GS. Unsurprisingly, he became treasury secretary 2 years later...

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/secs-2004-rule-let-banks-pile-up-new-risk/

Shee-it, Sherlock, they knew the rescue wagon was there waiting for the inevitable fall, and played it accordingly. What some of them didn't realize was that GS would prosper by shorting the rest of 'em into the dirt...

Dodd and Frank were basically well intentioned chumps, understandably leery of any changes proposed by the Bush Whitehouse, who regularly offered up trickbags... The changes proposed in 2003 wouldn't have even slowed things down...

Unsurprisingly, the guy that was head of the NY Fed at the time all this was going down is now our current treasury secretary, obviously due to the bang up job he performed at the Fed.

The new boss aint that much different from the old one. Matter of fact, the new boss has continued and extended a majority of the fucked up policies of the old boss. He even kept a lot of the very same players in place. Really sucks doesn't it?

 

[Darwin333]

I don't know how you can believe otherwise. If you come up with an idea for a new widget and build it, you have knowledge of the widget. If you then sell the widget to me and I disassemble and reverse engineer it so that I also have intimate knowledge of the widget, is my knowledge, the thought in my head, your private property?

As I understand it, current patent law states that certain genes in your body could be the property of someone else. If that is the case then why should thoughts be any different?

 

[BigDH01]

As I understand it, current patent law states that certain genes in your body could be the property of someone else. If that is the case then why should thoughts be any different?

Easy, this shouldn't be the case. I've never agreed with the idea that something innate to my mere existence should be patentable.

 

[Jhhnn]

Unsurprisingly, the guy that was head of the NY Fed at the time all this was going down is now our current treasury secretary, obviously due to the bang up job he performed at the Fed.

The new boss aint that much different from the old one. Matter of fact, the new boss has continued and extended a majority of the fucked up policies of the old boss. He even kept a lot of the very same players in place. Really sucks doesn't it?

Dunno that Obama would have done things differently, but the die was cast before he took office- the bailout was in full swing. I doubt that he could have backed out of it if he'd wanted to do so...

I figure we're in for a long downward slide, much like the Japanese and their zombie banks. If repubs make sufficient gains in the midterms, I figure we're in for a double dip, this one deeper than the one before. It's what they want, apparently, and the only thing that'll break the denial of their followers, anyway.

 

[Darwin333]

Dunno that Obama would have done things differently, but the die was cast before he took office- the bailout was in full swing. I doubt that he could have backed out of it if he'd wanted to do so...

I figure we're in for a long downward slide, much like the Japanese and their zombie banks. If repubs make sufficient gains in the midterms, I figure we're in for a double dip, this one deeper than the one before. It's what they want, apparently, and the only thing that'll break the denial of their followers, anyway.

So Obama is trying to help them by doing all of the things I stated which is basically just continuing to do what Bush did? Why do Obama and the Democrats in Congress hate America at least as much as Bush and his cronies?

At least you agree that the new boss isn't very different then the old boss.

 

[Jhhnn]

So Obama is trying to help them by doing all of the things I stated which is basically just continuing to do what Bush did? Why do Obama and the Democrats in Congress hate America at least as much as Bush and his cronies?

At least you agree that the new boss isn't very different then the old boss.

I think you overstate the situation. It takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, thanks to repub obstructionism. Just the way it is. Dems have 59, several of whom are unreliable. There are progressive elements and personalities in the Democratic party, maybe even a majority in the party, but they're not a majority in the Senate. There are very limited to non-existent progressive elements in the Republican party. Only 3 crossed the line to allow a watered down financial reform bill to pass. The rest voted en bloc against what really is rather modest reform.

That's reality. Things will have to get worse before they can get better, so if you're willing to force it to that, vote republican- they'll drive you home, if you know what I mean...

 

[Darwin333]

I think you overstate the situation. It takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, thanks to repub obstructionism. Just the way it is. Dems have 59, several of whom are unreliable. There are progressive elements and personalities in the Democratic party, maybe even a majority in the party, but they're not a majority in the Senate. There are very limited to non-existent progressive elements in the Republican party. Only 3 crossed the line to allow a watered down financial reform bill to pass. The rest voted en bloc against what really is rather modest reform.

That's reality. Things will have to get worse before they can get better, so if you're willing to force it to that, vote republican- they'll drive you home, if you know what I mean...

Could you please explain to me exactly what that has to do with the justice department and/or enforcing existing laws already on the books?