Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

It's the same old story with you again. You talk about things you know hardly anything about.
At least most people have the honesty of realizing that. You wont find me in economics discussions. But bitch please, don't pretend you know anything about food industry, as you have clearly demonstrated you don't by taking away any government for it.

So just because I want the government out of the food industry, I have no knowledge on the subject at all? Then at least explain briefly why.

All I'm saying is that private organizations are perfectly capable of offering the same service. Private organizations (issuing a quality label) can perfectly test food products on how healthy it is and can demand the producer to give the exact ingredients in order to get the label. If they would be dishonest about their product, they wouldn't receive the quality labels, and people would be warned not to buy the product. You see, no government involved. Would that be such a terrible situation that I must have no knowledge on the subject at all if I defend that?

You wont find me in economics discussions.

Yes, I know you're a fan of narrow-minded people (all specialized in one subject) who only discuss with people specialized in the same subject (as you have explained on the Belgian forum months ago), but I'm a fan of multidisciplinary knowledge. For instance I defend the severe austerity in the EU/Eurozone (although unfortunately, Rehn seems to allow to soften in), while I know such an austerity can and will negatively influence the economic growth.

Why do I defend that? Because I am not narrow-minded and take - next to the economic consequences - the political reality into account. And that political reality is that public savings are never popular - not in economic booming times and not in crises. The government simply doesn't save when the economy is booming because politicians fear the electoral consequences of saving money for crisis times. Never waste a good crisis.

All I'm saying is that private organizations are perfectly capable of offering the same service. Private organizations (issuing a quality label) can perfectly test food products on how healthy it is and can demand the producer to give the exact ingredients in order to get the label. If they would be dishonest about their product, they wouldn't receive the quality labels, and people would be warned not to buy the product. You see, no government involved. Would that be such a terrible situation that I must have no knowledge on the subject at all if I defend that?
For your information, organizations like BRC and IFS are private. And accreditation offices are private too. But they need to follow the same set of rules. Would be lovely if every country or even factory could decide on his own how to label their products. Private companies will never be able to provide this general set. But now you'll say they can anyway.


Yes, I know you're a fan of narrow-minded people (all specialized in one subject) who only discuss with people specialized in the same subject (as you have explained on the Belgian forum months ago), but I'm a fan of multidisciplinary knowledge. For instance I defend the severe austerity in the EU/Eurozone (although unfortunately, Rehn seems to allow to soften in), while I know such an austerity can and will negatively influence the economic growth.
Once again you fail. I'm not (a fan of) narrow minded (people). I just accept the fact that even though my interests go to different topics, I am not skilled nor experienced enough in those topics to discuss with people who are. Clearly unlike you.

For your information, organizations like BRC and IFS are private.

Yes, and that works fine, doesn't it? FSA isn't private though.

But they need to follow the same set of rules.

Why? Why are rules necessary?

Once again you fail. I'm not (a fan of) narrow minded (people). I just accept the fact that even though my interests go to different topics, I am not skilled nor experienced enough in those topics to discuss with people who are. Clearly unlike you.

Well, we've had that discussion before (with MoH, about subsidies for research and development). (And btw, with 'narrow minded' I meant 'vakidioten' in Dutch.)

You say one should not discuss topics one is not specialized in, I say you should to gain knowledge. But apparently, you refuse to share your knowledge and prefer to let the guys who lack knowledge according to you in the dark.

Which kind of proves my point that you're a fan of single discipline specialists.

Private organizations are perfectly capable of offering that service. In competition, which improves the quality.

I suggest you google "public good".

Then, you can think what kind of good information is.

Then, you may also want to consider the example of the effects of cigarettes on health and tobacco companies funding "research" and reports.

At the end of the day, you may still oppose FSA, but maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to articulate an argument beyond Private organizations are perfectly capable of offering that service. In competition, which improves the quality.

Yes, I'm an economist who doesn't know what a public good is. Food standards are NOT a public good.

Yes, cigarettes are bad for health. That's why I've never ever smoked in my life. And that's also the reason to keep it that way. Now what is the problem exactly? They fund research. So what?

I have a hint for you: there is something you are not, namely, an economist. That's independent of how you've wasted the last few years of your life.

Let's review some undergrad economics: the "publicity" of a good is characterized by its rivalry (zero or positive marginal cost) and the possibility to exclude from consumption through prices. If production costs are independent of the number of people who is going to consume it, the good is non-rival. If, on top of that, it's not technologically possible to exclude those who don't pay from consumption, we have a public good. Markets can't provide adequate incentives for public goods (basically, free markets produce exactly 0 of public goods). If the good is non-rival but there is a possibility to exclude through price, then you can get private production, but only under monopoly. There is no such thing as competitive supply of non-rival goods.

Now, to the point: I don't care whether you smoke or not. I don't even care whether smoking is bad for health or not. The point is that information about that will never be efficiently produced by the market because knowledge/research is a textbook public good. It is obviously non-rival, and there are very limited possibilities to exclude at best. That's why 9/10 news outlets are copy-pasting from 1 source. That's why there are patents. That's why there are public universities or public funding for research more generally, and that's why tobacco company fund research from which no direct return can be obtained, but has a high value for them in the shape of publicity (and outright misinformation).

So, we have partisan provision of biased information and no market incentives to produce accurate, un-biased information. Now tell me again how information about food is not a "public" at all

One can be excluded from the information on food. Especially in these modern times in which technology is able to do a lot.

But I'm not interested in a discussion with someone who is certain that I'm not an economist, though my university degree begs to differ.

One can be excluded from the information on food. Especially in these modern times in which technology is able to do a lot.

Technology "these days" goes exactly against that possibility, but either way, we still get to the point where There is no such thing as competitive supply of non-rival goods.

But I'm not interested in a discussion with someone who is certain that I'm not an economist, though my university degree begs to differ.

Like I said: That's independent of how you've wasted the last few years of your life. You don't talk like one, you don't think like one, you don't know things any economist should know. Forget economics, you can't even stick to Aristotle's laws for more than a second. Sue your university, man. If it's not imaginary, that is.

You don't talk like one, you don't think like one

Yes, because economics is an exact science in which all economists say and think the same.

Sue your university, man. If it's not imaginary, that is.

This was my final reply to you ever. Period.

Sad day for the Netherlands. They got a new king. Let's hope he doesn't rule that long. Vive la république.

well, in not monarchic, but the netherland people seems to differ

so, its a sad day for you not for the netherlands!

happy workers day!

Today it is the first of May, a day to remember the victims of socialism in all its dimensions. RIP

yes rip.

also a day to remember the workers rights

Sad day for the Netherlands. They got a new king. Let's hope he doesn't rule that long. Vive la république.

Can you explain me who are you to suggest that this is a bad day for The Netherlands ? We all know that this is a bad day for you because off well know reasons but the majority of the dutch it was a very good day and only about 100 "republicans" showed up at the demonstration places.

Enjoy the humankind

For sure, next time the parents must offer a bazooka for birthday... Like that the kid could kill them accidentally too...