Competition for Thee, Not Me

The way to mitigate externalities is to internalize them. Unsuccessful plaintiffs, particularly in frivolous cases, should absorb the whole costs of their frivolity.

"So, why can't the clerk of courts adopt a little black book wherein a layman 'lawyer' is presumed ethical until proven unethical?"

That could work. Again, my point was not that the current licensing regime is the best solution. Rather, my point was simply that eliminating the current regime will have externalities different from what would happen if hairdressers, doctors, pharmacists, etc., were not licensed. The fact that I have a financial interest in the outcome does not prove that this point is meritless.

The analysis would also be different if we assume a wholly anarcho-capitalist society, in which the state would not have a monopoly on force. But, as I understand Asheesh, he's not premising his observations on discarding the state-run justice system.

It's so revealing to read John P.'s dissertation under the thread "Competition for Thee, Not Me".

John says "Even being reprimanded without a license suspension is damaging to the license-holder, because the reprimand goes on his record and also affects his malpractice insurance."

So, why can't the clerk of courts adopt a little black book wherein a layman "lawyer" is presumed ethical until proven unethical?

And how many lawyers have ever been victimized by insurance subrogation? Not many, apparently, or they would campaign to insure an accident victim is made whole before his insurer receives a dime from third party funds.

"If you are tempted to buy medications on the Internet, there is apparently a very high counterfeit rate (it is likely safe to use your insurer's Internet or mail site though)."

There's a high counterfeit rate for everything on the internet. That's why "v1agr4" pills are so often advertised in your email.

There are, however, reputable sources, such as pills365.com. It's just that the environment forces a "buyer beware" approach.

"But even she believed that one commodity should be exempt from the rule of free trade: sugar. Her father and her husband were in the sugar business in south Louisiana."

This reminds me of my favorite story about Ray Hyman, my former colleague at the University of Oregon. Ray is an internationally known skeptic - he's made a lot of money debunking dousing, ridiculing reiki and trashing tarot.

After one of his conferences at the University of Oregon debunking psychics, channelers and dousers, I asked him why the skeptic community never debunked organized religion. I pointed out that this delusion was just as irrational and much more damaging than the delusions he and his cronies liked to debunk.

Ray told me that fundamentalist Christians provided financial support to skeptics - they were in favor of debunking "black magic" like psychics, channelers, etc. Besides, Ray said, with a wink, my mother was a Christian.

Thanks for alerting us to another pseudorational hypocrite!

When you design a system financed by stealing from other people, it's far too charitible and deceiving to call its use an externality.

In any case, the quality-control functions you outlined would be (and in some cases, are) better performed by those with an incentive (read: profit) to get it right. In other words, when you stop holding a gun to people's heads, externalities have a way of getting internalized.

As it stands, it's a private club of thugs, by thugs, for thugs. How anyone can sleep at night knowing they are a legitimized mafioso is beyond me.

I realize that, since I'm a lawyer, this will have the appearance (at least) of confirming exactly what Asheesh was talking about, but I'll put it out here anyway:

Legal services ARE different, in a relevant way, from other regulated markets. The difference is that, when someone hires a lawyer to engage in litigation, the customer is spending not only his own money but also the public's money, since he is compelling the judicial system to spend resources on his case. He's also enlisting the state's monopoly on force to compel someone else to spend resources defending against his case.

So inefficient litigation has negative externalities -- costs that the consumer doesn't have to bear. One way the legal system tries to deal with that problem is by allowing the direct victims of frivolous litigation to sue the "bad" plaintiff for abuse of process. However, the standard for proving abuse of process is very high, because courts don't want to deter suits that are not ridiculous even though the odds of success are slim.

The role that licensing of lawyers plays in this is that the license gives courts a lot of leverage over lawyers. Since getting licensed is very expensive, and since you can't practice without a license, lawyers don't want to risk having their licenses removed or suspended. Even being reprimanded without a license suspension is damaging to the license-holder, because the reprimand goes on his record and also affects his malpractice insurance.

The more that litigators behave, the harder it is for "bad" plaintiffs to file or maintain inefficient lawsuits. Lawyers act as the gatekeepers for a lot of lying, vidictiveness, etc., that would increase the costs of the judicial system if such conduct made it beyond the lawyers' offices and into court.

Now, I admit of course that licensing imposes its own externalities. I have no idea, however, whether the inefficiencies of the current system are greater or less than the inefficiencies of an unregulated system. My point is just that the externalities that would be associated with an unregulated system should not be ignored (especially on the grounds of type-M arguments).

save_the_rustbelt: You should study economics some time. It's a very interesting field of study. For example, you might learn Nelson's Principle: "There are no problems; only unmet business opportunities."

Thus what you see as a problem (a lack of reputation services for internet medicine suppliers) is in reality simply a business that doesn't exist yet. Since you are wise enough to perceive the problem in advance of other people, perhaps you should start that business and save your personal portion of the rustbelt?

"and what kind of sugar went into those candy bars?" Oh, you used cane sugar? We have a tariff on that source of sucrose. Pay up."

High sugar prices result in the substitution of corn syrup for sugar, with net negative rather than positive effects on our health. So even this supposed benefit (which would be tiny, if you think about the price of sugar) is an illusion. I'll second Noah - sugar protection is outrageously bad. You get environmental damage in the Everglades, public health damage via corn syrup, higher prices for the consumer ... it's an amazing amount of damage for one policy.

If you are tempted to buy medications on the Internet, there is apparently a very high counterfeit rate (it is likely safe to use your insurer's Internet or mail site though).

Imagine what happens when you Viagra turns out to be sugar pills.

Imagine what happens when your Beta blocker turned out to be sugar pills - ugh!

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the sugar tariffs & quotas, and we all are responsible for our own consumption choices.

I'm only pointing out that altering the supply curve means there are side-effects to be considered.

True_Liberal makes an ugly point:

"Sugar protection would drive me insane too, were it not for the fact that high sugar prices tend to drive down consumption, to the benefit of our collective health."

Notice "our collective health." I am sorry mr. True_Liberal, but I will worry about my health myself and not have anyone high and mighty adjusting prices and making the choice for me.

To get an idea of how the domestic sugar industry is protected, see: http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/sugar.a...>

The sugar lobby is so strong, its influence so pervasive, that imports of sugar-bearing products are subjected to duties and quotas based on their sugar content.

A former loophole, the import of pre-sweetened tea, was closed some time ago after importers discovered it was cheaper to import said tea and extract its sugar, that to buy sugar at domestic prices. That door was soon slammed shut.

The above web link implies that sugar import quotas are somehow being relaxed; I'm inclined to said "yeah,sure..."

I wonder, does Hershey's or M&M/Mars have factory's in Mexico, or perhaps Canada?

I don't know how protectionist those countries are about sugar, but it would seem to me that if they had low tariffs and low non-tariff barriers to sugar, then it would be ideal to source candy production in those two countries instead of the US.

The price differential may not be enough to shut down US plants, but if I were an exec at a candy company I'd look into it anyway before I opened a new factory in the US due to lower sugar costs.

"Sugar protection would drive me insane too, were it not for the fact that high sugar prices tend to drive down consumption, to the benefit of our collective health."

Or, high sugar prices tend to drive up consumption of fructose because it's a much cheaper (and heavily subsidized) substitute for sucrose.

Sugar protection would drive me insane too, were it not for the fact that high sugar prices tend to drive down consumption, to the benefit of our collective health.

But it all depends on whose ox is gored.

Sugar protectionism drives me insane. Makes for some "interesting" party conversation when I start flipping out about Archer Daniels Midland and Louisiana sugar farmers.

Stan Liebowitz's 'Re-Thinking the Network Economy' has an excellent chapter about what will sell, and what won't, online. He predicts that groceries, automobiles, furniture and prescription drugs not used to combat chronic disorders aren't candidates for e-tailing.

Also there's a clever description of the demise of 'haggling'.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814406491/qid=1149884075/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-6800589-5301608?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Reminds me of a medical convention I once attended, at which almost all the attendees (almost all doctors or some variant thereof, mind you) were in agreement of the "need" for a strict reduction of over-the-counter drugs (to say nothing of the "need" for prescriptions themselves), greater regulation of the pharmaceutical industry, and the near, if not total, abolishment of direct-to-consumer drug advertising.

Storage is clearly the way to go. You could use it as a guest bed! Or a place to store random clutter. And of course you're set for halloween decoration...

In the last few years the "gentlemens' agreement" has evaporated and funeral homes are actively competing on price, including comparison charts in the local paper.

As far as Internet casket shopping, you would have to either buy early and store it, or take your chances with on-time shipping. A shipping failure could cause some interesting moments.

But then storage would be interesting as well.