Amazon snubs French free delivery ban with one-cent charge(france24.com)
france24.com
Amazon snubs French free delivery ban with one-cent charge
http://www.france24.com/en/20140711-amazon-snubs-french-free-delivery-ban-with-1-cent-charge/
91 comments
"Free collectible 5 Euro note with this purchase!"
Couldn't Amazon provide a frequent use reward card that provides buy 20 with 1 book free to have a similar discount? It has the added benefit of enticing repeated buying.
Would the law permit Amazon to discount the delivery fee more than 100%? ("We'll pay you 5% to allow us to deliver to you.")
No, in view of the law both (book and delivery) are considered as two different "products" and they are only allowed 5% on the delivery. They can set the delivery price to anything they want, but it was 0 before so it doesn't matter.
Seems like the protection laws were enacted with the goal of ensuring access to books in small towns. Big stores are prevented from discounting books (more than 5%) with the idea that small stores will go out of business from price pressure, then selection will be limited to what the big stores have, which is less than the aggregate of the small stores.
Seems reasonable, but does that still apply to Amazon? Even if critics of Amazon are correct, and Amazon raises prices after small businesses are gone, consumers are no worse off than they are now, when discounts are prohibited.
I can't see how anybody other than the booksellers are being advantaged here, with the cost being paid by consumers.
Seems reasonable, but does that still apply to Amazon? Even if critics of Amazon are correct, and Amazon raises prices after small businesses are gone, consumers are no worse off than they are now, when discounts are prohibited.
I can't see how anybody other than the booksellers are being advantaged here, with the cost being paid by consumers.
Seems like the protection laws were enacted with the goal of ensuring access to books in small towns.
I've lived much of my life in small towns in the US, and honestly, the single best thing about Amazon is that it massively increased my access to books. Small-town bookstores never carried more than a handful of programming books, a couple of short shelves of science fiction, and none of the strange specialist material I buy today (books on purely functional data structures, bilingual French/hieroglyphic texts, and so on—everybody wants something out on the long tail, but the details obviously vary).
Right now, my least favorite thing about the French book market is the near-impossibility of buying French-language ebooks from overseas, assuming I want more than Le Petit Prince or a bunch of public domain classics. The only French publishing niche that has this figured out is long-form comics (aka bandes dessinées). There, the publishers banded together to create the massively awesome online distributor Izneo, which sucks up more of my book budget than I'd care to admit, and which allows me to buy from anywhere in the world: http://www.izneo.com/
On the other hand, the French tradition of aggressive law-making means that they can actually decide to create a 4-year startup visa, then go ahead and actually do it.
I've lived much of my life in small towns in the US, and honestly, the single best thing about Amazon is that it massively increased my access to books. Small-town bookstores never carried more than a handful of programming books, a couple of short shelves of science fiction, and none of the strange specialist material I buy today (books on purely functional data structures, bilingual French/hieroglyphic texts, and so on—everybody wants something out on the long tail, but the details obviously vary).
Right now, my least favorite thing about the French book market is the near-impossibility of buying French-language ebooks from overseas, assuming I want more than Le Petit Prince or a bunch of public domain classics. The only French publishing niche that has this figured out is long-form comics (aka bandes dessinées). There, the publishers banded together to create the massively awesome online distributor Izneo, which sucks up more of my book budget than I'd care to admit, and which allows me to buy from anywhere in the world: http://www.izneo.com/
On the other hand, the French tradition of aggressive law-making means that they can actually decide to create a 4-year startup visa, then go ahead and actually do it.
I think most of those small town stores would have been happy to order you whatever (of course only if they could find it in a catalog). That's still less convenient than internet shopping though.
I had a similar experience living in a non-anglophone country ordering english books. Whenever I heard "we can order it" I stopped listening. It always arrived in more than a month, cost tons, got stuck in customs, and wasn't in the catalog anyway.
That can depend on how religious the owner/runner of the bookshop is and if your own relgious views matter. Science verses Relgion. One Reglion is the locale area, your own is another etc etc
> Small-town bookstores never carried more than a handful of programming books, a couple of short shelves of science fiction, and none of the strange specialist material I buy today
When did you start buying? I lived in a small town (roughly 40,000 people) and in 1981 I could buy Lance A. Leventhal's "6809 Assembly Language Programming" on order in less than a week. The 6502 version was in stock.
The problem is that chain bookstores emerged right around this point in the local malls (Waldenbooks, for my local area) and killed the local bookstores.
So, in my town, the local bookstore, right off the downtown park, went under in favor of the chain store in the local mall--neither of which now exist. So, now the damage can't be undone without a significant investment by somebody, but the upside profit is limited by whether Amazon is willing to undercut you.
Don't get me wrong. I loathe most local businesses in small towns. It used to be that they were slow, but they were reliable. If they said it would be done on date X two weeks out, it would be done on date X or they would start moving heaven and earth. Now, they tend to be slow and unreliable. The last car repair I had to deal with was: "Well, it didn't come in the shipment. It will be another week." "Um, no. Get the part tomorrow." "Not gonna happen." "Actually, yes, the part will be here tomorrow because I'm having it FedEx'd in. And me, my lawyer, your manager, the dealership owner, and GM are going to have a conference call while you are fixing the car you've already had for a week." Those kinds of businesses should go under post haste.
Nevertheless, there are some local businesses that get it and do a great job serving the local area. They don't deserve to get wiped out because WalMart, Amazon, etc. can force things that the smaller businesses cannot.
When did you start buying? I lived in a small town (roughly 40,000 people) and in 1981 I could buy Lance A. Leventhal's "6809 Assembly Language Programming" on order in less than a week. The 6502 version was in stock.
The problem is that chain bookstores emerged right around this point in the local malls (Waldenbooks, for my local area) and killed the local bookstores.
So, in my town, the local bookstore, right off the downtown park, went under in favor of the chain store in the local mall--neither of which now exist. So, now the damage can't be undone without a significant investment by somebody, but the upside profit is limited by whether Amazon is willing to undercut you.
Don't get me wrong. I loathe most local businesses in small towns. It used to be that they were slow, but they were reliable. If they said it would be done on date X two weeks out, it would be done on date X or they would start moving heaven and earth. Now, they tend to be slow and unreliable. The last car repair I had to deal with was: "Well, it didn't come in the shipment. It will be another week." "Um, no. Get the part tomorrow." "Not gonna happen." "Actually, yes, the part will be here tomorrow because I'm having it FedEx'd in. And me, my lawyer, your manager, the dealership owner, and GM are going to have a conference call while you are fixing the car you've already had for a week." Those kinds of businesses should go under post haste.
Nevertheless, there are some local businesses that get it and do a great job serving the local area. They don't deserve to get wiped out because WalMart, Amazon, etc. can force things that the smaller businesses cannot.
Actually the number of indy bookstores is on the rise, and has been for several years.
They do compete with Amazon, of course, but not nearly as directly as they do with Borders and Barnes & Noble. Borders is gone and B&N is closing stores, which means better times for the indy shops.
They do compete with Amazon, of course, but not nearly as directly as they do with Borders and Barnes & Noble. Borders is gone and B&N is closing stores, which means better times for the indy shops.
And this magically happened just after Amazon had to actually start paying sales tax.
Funny how you can actually compete when your biggest competitor loses its 5-8% retail cost advantage.
Funny how you can actually compete when your biggest competitor loses its 5-8% retail cost advantage.
I realize that it's fashionable to blame Amazon for everything, but in fact the number of indy bookstores has been increasing since 2009, and took a big jump after Borders closed in 2011.
Amazon pays taxes in every state where it has a presence, and doesn't in states where it doesn't. Just like every business (and individual) since, well, ever.
It will be interesting to see how the theory that you're obliged to obey all the laws of every state plays out when it's applied on a more general level. You're okay with that, I guess?
Amazon pays taxes in every state where it has a presence, and doesn't in states where it doesn't. Just like every business (and individual) since, well, ever.
It will be interesting to see how the theory that you're obliged to obey all the laws of every state plays out when it's applied on a more general level. You're okay with that, I guess?
> Amazon pays taxes in every state where it has a presence, and doesn't in states where it doesn't. Just like every business (and individual) since, well, ever.
Um, you do realize that this has also been ILLEGAL forever, right?
You, as an individual, are supposed to pay sales tax on your purchases. Period. That is the law.
The fact that the appearance of Amazon allowed millions of people to break that law when the local businesses could not is why the states went after Amazon directly.
Would you much rather that we start convicting people for not paying sales tax? This is the alternative.
Amazon offering zillions of books in stock is disruption. Amazon offering overnight delivery is disruption.
Amazon enabling millions of people to dodge their sales tax isn't disruption--it's called being a jerk.
Um, you do realize that this has also been ILLEGAL forever, right?
You, as an individual, are supposed to pay sales tax on your purchases. Period. That is the law.
The fact that the appearance of Amazon allowed millions of people to break that law when the local businesses could not is why the states went after Amazon directly.
Would you much rather that we start convicting people for not paying sales tax? This is the alternative.
Amazon offering zillions of books in stock is disruption. Amazon offering overnight delivery is disruption.
Amazon enabling millions of people to dodge their sales tax isn't disruption--it's called being a jerk.
"Um, you do realize that this has also been ILLEGAL forever, right?"
Um, no it isn't.
"You, as an individual, are supposed to pay sales tax on your purchases."
You, as an individual, are an entirely different entity from Amazon, which is a company located in another state.
"Would you much rather that we start convicting people for not paying sales tax?"
Sure I would. Why are you advocating that the burden be put on the entity that isn't breaking the law rather than the one that is? Why are you advocating that states be able to place the burden of enforcing their local laws on an entity located in another state?
"Amazon enabling millions of people to dodge their sales tax isn't disruption"
Amazon isn't the first company to sell stuff by mail order, dude. The Sears Catalog first came out in the 19th century.
And yes, high-tax states whined about it back then, too.
Um, no it isn't.
"You, as an individual, are supposed to pay sales tax on your purchases."
You, as an individual, are an entirely different entity from Amazon, which is a company located in another state.
"Would you much rather that we start convicting people for not paying sales tax?"
Sure I would. Why are you advocating that the burden be put on the entity that isn't breaking the law rather than the one that is? Why are you advocating that states be able to place the burden of enforcing their local laws on an entity located in another state?
"Amazon enabling millions of people to dodge their sales tax isn't disruption"
Amazon isn't the first company to sell stuff by mail order, dude. The Sears Catalog first came out in the 19th century.
And yes, high-tax states whined about it back then, too.
Powell's Books: http://www.powells.com/info/salestax.html does not collect sales tax.
AbeBooks: http://www.abebooks.com/docs/BooksellerPolicies/4.shtml does not collect sales tax.
Apple did not collect sales tax until they started opening Apple Stores in other states.
AbeBooks: http://www.abebooks.com/docs/BooksellerPolicies/4.shtml does not collect sales tax.
Apple did not collect sales tax until they started opening Apple Stores in other states.
I live in a small town (13k city, 68k county) and sadly the closest thing we have to a non-religious bookstore is a Walmart.
I buy practically everything online, mostly from Amazon.
I buy practically everything online, mostly from Amazon.
> I've lived much of my life in small towns in the US, and honestly, the single best thing about Amazon is that it massively increased my access to books.
Certainly, but having small local bookshops doesn't preclude also having Amazon.
Certainly, but having small local bookshops doesn't preclude also having Amazon.
Essentially any profit made by Amazon in Europe is faux booked to a Luxembourg office where it is then off-shored to another tax-haven. It then just sits there till Amazon can buy Congress to let them bring it back to US shareholders.
That money is effectively removed from the economy.
Any profit made in a local bookstore meanwhile will support the jobs of more people and will be taxed and will recirculate when those employees spend that money. Its because they are part of society and pay their way that Amazon can undercut them.
Any profit made in a local bookstore meanwhile will support the jobs of more people and will be taxed and will recirculate when those employees spend that money. Its because they are part of society and pay their way that Amazon can undercut them.
Your remark sounds as if it is the company's fault to act like this.
1) The first part is exactly how the EU was designed: operate from one country, reduce your overhead. Maybe it is not Amazon's fault that they comply with the rules?
2) The second part is exactly how the Congress wanted its tax laws: if you bring money home, pay your taxes, if you don't, we are not involved. Maybe it is not Amazon's fault that they comply with the rules?
1) The first part is exactly how the EU was designed: operate from one country, reduce your overhead. Maybe it is not Amazon's fault that they comply with the rules?
2) The second part is exactly how the Congress wanted its tax laws: if you bring money home, pay your taxes, if you don't, we are not involved. Maybe it is not Amazon's fault that they comply with the rules?
That's fine, they act within the rules, but the rules are not set in stone, and neither does their public image depend solely on not breaking the law. The conversation is not about whether companies should voluntarily act in a certain way, it's whether the laws need to be changed. Or, on occasion, if the law cannot be changed, whether consumers can force change in an organized way, thereby making it profitable for the company to alter its behaviour. Companies are constantly shifting in response to campaigns, or in general to improve their image. It's not a legal requirement to use recycled cups or Fairtrade coffee, but many cafes will do that to look good. Companies shouldn't be surprised if the same sort of reputational damage applies to how they treat their workers or whether they pay a lot less tax than their rivals.
> That money is effectively removed from the economy.
Not really. If that money is stored in a bank, most of it will be loaned out. If it is used to buy bonds (including but not limited to government bonds) then it goes to the issuer. And so on.
Not really. If that money is stored in a bank, most of it will be loaned out. If it is used to buy bonds (including but not limited to government bonds) then it goes to the issuer. And so on.
This is the only correct answer.
Even if Amazon actually removed it from the economy by putting it under Bezos' mattress, that would boost the value of all remaining fiat, increasing purchasing power for everyone else. So consumers would gain a temporary burst of value, which they can utilize today; when the state then devalues fiat over time, Amazon's money will lose value, while the consumer will have locked in that higher purchasing power.
There is no scenario under which Amazon actually hurts anybody by 'removing' money from the economy. Money and wealth are not fixed sums anyway.
Even if Amazon actually removed it from the economy by putting it under Bezos' mattress, that would boost the value of all remaining fiat, increasing purchasing power for everyone else. So consumers would gain a temporary burst of value, which they can utilize today; when the state then devalues fiat over time, Amazon's money will lose value, while the consumer will have locked in that higher purchasing power.
There is no scenario under which Amazon actually hurts anybody by 'removing' money from the economy. Money and wealth are not fixed sums anyway.
Bank lending to small businesses is way down since the start of the recession, and if they were inclined to start again they could borrow at nearly zero percent anyway. Bank leadership has been saying they don't see good opportunities. In that climate, Amazon's account makes no difference.
See for example
http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/wells-fargo-earnings-and-...
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/12/eu-banks-dijsselblo...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2014/07/11/str...
See for example
http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/wells-fargo-earnings-and-...
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/12/eu-banks-dijsselblo...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2014/07/11/str...
Amazon can't evade taxes for money earned in France. If you operate in France, and your business earns revenue in France, you pay French taxes. You can't magically offshore it without paying taxes and then expect to still operate there.
What actually happens is that Amazon makes no profit, and thus does not get taxed on profits. But it still pays VAT, Property, B&O, etc.
What actually happens is that Amazon makes no profit, and thus does not get taxed on profits. But it still pays VAT, Property, B&O, etc.
It's actually quite easy to evade taxes on money earned in a particular country, as you are allowed to subtract inputs from your tax burden.
So the French subsidiary buys very expensive inputs from the Luxembourg subsidiary, meaning the French subsidiary doesn't show a profit, mon dieu how could that have happened, such a shame!
Fortunately, the Luxembourg subsidiary is very profitable, exclusively from "sales" to the French subsidiary.
Obviously all of this typically happens only on paper.
So the French subsidiary buys very expensive inputs from the Luxembourg subsidiary, meaning the French subsidiary doesn't show a profit, mon dieu how could that have happened, such a shame!
Fortunately, the Luxembourg subsidiary is very profitable, exclusively from "sales" to the French subsidiary.
Obviously all of this typically happens only on paper.
This is worth clarifying because all multi-nationals operate that way.
Say Starbucks-France makes 10 billion in profit in a year.
Then that year Starbucks-Luxembourg will send it an invoice saying "You owe us 10 billion for a license to use the name Starbucks".
That way SB-France, on paper, made no profit and pays no income tax.
Say Starbucks-France makes 10 billion in profit in a year.
Then that year Starbucks-Luxembourg will send it an invoice saying "You owe us 10 billion for a license to use the name Starbucks".
That way SB-France, on paper, made no profit and pays no income tax.
[deleted]
Amazon customers pay VAT. Amazon collects it from the customer.
The problem you raise is actually three problems. First is tax-avoidance by Amazon. Second is a massive online seller replacing many employees at the local level with fewer employees at a central location. Third is that the retailer is foreign.
The first problem seems better addressed by tax reform, since it impacts many industries other than book selling, and this measure won't stop it with Amazon anyhow.
The second problem is one of increased efficiency (to use an economist's definition) causing disruption. The French seem to have been resistant to that since the industrial revolution, so it might be helpful to understand this law in that context. It's hard to see how they're going to win that one in the long run, although prolonged skepticism to the benefits of efficiency might have helped create some of the social benefits in France. From the outside though it looks like this social bias has hurt France more than helped it (other countries have maintained robust social programmes without rejecting technological disruption) so I wouldn't welcome laws promoting it.
The third problem is not just a case of nationalism, but because it makes it harder to soften the blow of disruption by pointing to other local jobs in technology. It's comes down to an argument on globalization. The jury is still out on whether globalization will be a net positive or negative. To me it seems unstoppable, though, and I don't think it's wise to be on the wrong side of the trend.
The first problem seems better addressed by tax reform, since it impacts many industries other than book selling, and this measure won't stop it with Amazon anyhow.
The second problem is one of increased efficiency (to use an economist's definition) causing disruption. The French seem to have been resistant to that since the industrial revolution, so it might be helpful to understand this law in that context. It's hard to see how they're going to win that one in the long run, although prolonged skepticism to the benefits of efficiency might have helped create some of the social benefits in France. From the outside though it looks like this social bias has hurt France more than helped it (other countries have maintained robust social programmes without rejecting technological disruption) so I wouldn't welcome laws promoting it.
The third problem is not just a case of nationalism, but because it makes it harder to soften the blow of disruption by pointing to other local jobs in technology. It's comes down to an argument on globalization. The jury is still out on whether globalization will be a net positive or negative. To me it seems unstoppable, though, and I don't think it's wise to be on the wrong side of the trend.
What about money spent by Amazon employees?
They are exceptionally poorly paid and insecure. Here in the UK most of them are on benefits. Effectively my taxes are subsidising their profits.
As someone in the UK, I'm quite happy for amazon to provide me with low cost items on this basis. The tax is fixed rate VAT here in the UK so everything I buy from a tax dodge means I'm effectively getting a small rebate against my nearly £3375 a month (including income tax, NI and VAT) contribution to the state every month versus spinning another 20% into VAT.
Then when I snuff it, capital gains time...
Then when I snuff it, capital gains time...
They are exceptionally poorly paid and insecure.
So you'll be happy when they're all replaced by robots? This is Amazon, so that's going to happen fairly soon.
So you'll be happy when they're all replaced by robots? This is Amazon, so that's going to happen fairly soon.
Well, the people who work in the fulfillment centers are poorly paid. The software engineers, managers, and other employees that work within the organization are generally paid very competitively with companies like google etc.
The technical side in Amazon also report being under staffed and highly stressed comparied with google/apple etc.
Your taxes (as well as mine) are subsidizing the profits of a heck of a lot of firms.
If they were unemployed, certainly they would be collecting even more benefits. If anything Amazon is subsidizing your tax burden.
> Seems reasonable
No it doesn't.
No it doesn't.
I have trouble reading an article from a news source that use value-laden statements like "snubs French free delivery ban" as if they are committing some sort of mortal sin against the state, but have no qualms about making the only visible part of the article be the headline:
http://postimg.org/image/ngztksi8j/
That crass, advertisement-filled page is certainly a bigger offense against the capitalism-averse French than a $0.01 delivery charge.
http://postimg.org/image/ngztksi8j/
That crass, advertisement-filled page is certainly a bigger offense against the capitalism-averse French than a $0.01 delivery charge.
>capitalism-averse
Interesting phrase In this context, given that the intent (or at least likely effect) of the law is to protect the market from dominance by a single large player.
Interesting phrase In this context, given that the intent (or at least likely effect) of the law is to protect the market from dominance by a single large player.
I'm always amazed at how we have laws for every little thing (or more accurately, against every little thing).
Maybe it's the coder in me but it just seems so inefficient, like an if…else if… with dozens of conditions…
Maybe it's the coder in me but it just seems so inefficient, like an if…else if… with dozens of conditions…
I think this is basically why so many nerds become Libertarians. Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program.
> Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program.
> Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about.
This canard about libertarians [1] not understanding the complexity of the real world is oft-repeated, but it is misguided, and comes off as condescending to boot.[2]
The likes of Hayek and Friedman did not contend that reality is simple; they contended that it was complex -- too complex for economic systems based on expansive government intervention (socialism, mercantilism, etc) to grapple with and produce satisfactory outcomes.
They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist.
Now, you are free to question whether empirical evidence bears out either point. But it is ignorant to suggest libertarianism is based on eschewing complexity.
1. Here I am referring mostly to libertarians of a consequentialist lean. Libertarians of a mostly deontological lean are orthogonal to this discussion because whether or not they understand the world's complexity is mostly immaterial to their policy prescriptions, as they are concerned mostly with morality, not outcomes.
2. Usually unintentionally, I would hope, though it seems that at least with mpyne it is not.
> Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about.
This canard about libertarians [1] not understanding the complexity of the real world is oft-repeated, but it is misguided, and comes off as condescending to boot.[2]
The likes of Hayek and Friedman did not contend that reality is simple; they contended that it was complex -- too complex for economic systems based on expansive government intervention (socialism, mercantilism, etc) to grapple with and produce satisfactory outcomes.
They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist.
Now, you are free to question whether empirical evidence bears out either point. But it is ignorant to suggest libertarianism is based on eschewing complexity.
1. Here I am referring mostly to libertarians of a consequentialist lean. Libertarians of a mostly deontological lean are orthogonal to this discussion because whether or not they understand the world's complexity is mostly immaterial to their policy prescriptions, as they are concerned mostly with morality, not outcomes.
2. Usually unintentionally, I would hope, though it seems that at least with mpyne it is not.
>to grapple with and produce satisfactory outcomes.
What qualifies as "satisfactory" is where things get complicated. For Friedman, satisfactory is maximizing shareholder value. That goal is much too narrow for a well-functioning society. Markets serve society, society does not serve markets.
Optimizing for Friedman's definition of satisfactory puts many important things on the backburner: environment, quality of life, social justice, good communities, social programs, health, worker rights, etc.
What qualifies as "satisfactory" is where things get complicated. For Friedman, satisfactory is maximizing shareholder value. That goal is much too narrow for a well-functioning society. Markets serve society, society does not serve markets.
Optimizing for Friedman's definition of satisfactory puts many important things on the backburner: environment, quality of life, social justice, good communities, social programs, health, worker rights, etc.
> For Friedman, satisfactory is maximizing shareholder value.
Not so. Friedman's "goal" is not maximizing shareholder value, but rather maximizing economic efficiency, and economic efficiency includes things like social programs, health, the environment, etc.
Not so. Friedman's "goal" is not maximizing shareholder value, but rather maximizing economic efficiency, and economic efficiency includes things like social programs, health, the environment, etc.
>and economic efficiency includes things like social programs, health, the environment, etc.
Long-term, yes. Quarter to quarter? No, and that's partially why we're in the mess that we're in.
Long-term, yes. Quarter to quarter? No, and that's partially why we're in the mess that we're in.
Balancing long- and short-term benefits is part of what markets can do as well. The problem is that the further into the future you look, the wider the possibilities, but the lower the confidence you can have both that your present plan will persist and that your present plan will yield the results you intend.
The interest rate (if it was determined by a market) is essentially the price of renting money, or in other words, the market's description of the value of using capital now versus using that capital in the future. The interest rate is one major way that markets can balance long- and short-term benefits. It is a fundamental and vital part of an economy, and it (along with issuing money itself) is arguably the part of the economy most interfered with by governments.
The interest rate (if it was determined by a market) is essentially the price of renting money, or in other words, the market's description of the value of using capital now versus using that capital in the future. The interest rate is one major way that markets can balance long- and short-term benefits. It is a fundamental and vital part of an economy, and it (along with issuing money itself) is arguably the part of the economy most interfered with by governments.
>Balancing long- and short-term benefits is part of what markets can do as well.
Markets can selectively ignore variables. For instance, the energy industry is not worried about externalities. If it did, we'd be nearly fully using renewables by now.
If markets cared about health instead of what's cheap, addictive, and easy to ship and store, grain and sugar wouldn't be so heavily pushed.
Markets can selectively ignore variables. For instance, the energy industry is not worried about externalities. If it did, we'd be nearly fully using renewables by now.
If markets cared about health instead of what's cheap, addictive, and easy to ship and store, grain and sugar wouldn't be so heavily pushed.
It's interesting that the two industries you mentioned are two that are intensely subsidized and regulated by government.
Healthcare is cheaper all around the world because it's intensely regulated by the government. "Market forces" are great when you can have failure. You can't have failure with something that's keeping you from dying.
The petroleum industry lobbies for subsidies and receives them, since it's an incredibly good return on their investment.
The petroleum industry lobbies for subsidies and receives them, since it's an incredibly good return on their investment.
Healthcare is "cheaper" in many places than the US because other countries regulate healthcare more effectively than the US does. The US government spends more per capita on health care than most nations, including the UK and Canada.
> "Market forces" are great when you can have failure. You can't have failure with something that's keeping you from dying.
Surely you recognize that governments can fail in their regulation of health care. For example, there is no shortage of cases where the FDA certainly caused many deaths and a lot of suffering by banning or slowing down the introduction of numerous drugs.
> "Market forces" are great when you can have failure. You can't have failure with something that's keeping you from dying.
Surely you recognize that governments can fail in their regulation of health care. For example, there is no shortage of cases where the FDA certainly caused many deaths and a lot of suffering by banning or slowing down the introduction of numerous drugs.
>For example, there is no shortage of cases where the FDA certainly caused many deaths and a lot of suffering by banning or slowing down the introduction of numerous drugs.
You can't safely introduce drugs without doing controlled studies.
You can't safely introduce drugs without doing controlled studies.
The idea that free market advocates seek to maximize private shareholder value is a fallacy. Friedman developed the Negative Income Tax, precursor to EITC which is a successful anti-poverty program.
> For Friedman, satisfactory is maximizing shareholder value.
That doctrine (which I disagree with, FWIW) applies to companies, not to overall economic outcomes.
That doctrine (which I disagree with, FWIW) applies to companies, not to overall economic outcomes.
> They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist.
They shifted simplicity from society to the individual. So if the social was complex it was nevertheless based on a the motives of simple individuals.
That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic.
They shifted simplicity from society to the individual. So if the social was complex it was nevertheless based on a the motives of simple individuals.
That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic.
> That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic.
I can't speak to Friedman, but Hayek's views were more subtle than that (and so are mine, for what little it matters). He recognized many limitations on the rationality of economic actors; he advocated what today would probably be referred to as bounded rationality.
http://books.google.com/books?id=CdI9VRcn1SEC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA...
http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc1s6zB8Ee8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8...
http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/97811372... (same book)
http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/why_i_a...
http://people.duke.edu/~alexrose/Darwintosoros.pdf
I can't speak to Friedman, but Hayek's views were more subtle than that (and so are mine, for what little it matters). He recognized many limitations on the rationality of economic actors; he advocated what today would probably be referred to as bounded rationality.
http://books.google.com/books?id=CdI9VRcn1SEC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA...
http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc1s6zB8Ee8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8...
http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/97811372... (same book)
http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/why_i_a...
http://people.duke.edu/~alexrose/Darwintosoros.pdf
Even bounded rationality is totally wrong. Human behaviour isnt (economically) rational "except for limitations".
The very source of the value we place upon institutions, people, goals, etc. is entirely a product of the interaction between culture and basic psychological drives.
People do not have "preferences" in the strong propositional sense required for modelling. They have drives, ideals, etc. These can be systematized by asking them to rank states of affairs but even here things are delicate (which is why polling on issues is generally useless).
Any kind of "rationality" talk is extremely prescriptive in practice: failing to actually look at the world and describe it, libertarians et al. go around theorizing in an ahistorical vacuum with pseudo-computer human stand-ins. And criticise actions in the real world that dont conform.
The very source of the value we place upon institutions, people, goals, etc. is entirely a product of the interaction between culture and basic psychological drives.
People do not have "preferences" in the strong propositional sense required for modelling. They have drives, ideals, etc. These can be systematized by asking them to rank states of affairs but even here things are delicate (which is why polling on issues is generally useless).
Any kind of "rationality" talk is extremely prescriptive in practice: failing to actually look at the world and describe it, libertarians et al. go around theorizing in an ahistorical vacuum with pseudo-computer human stand-ins. And criticise actions in the real world that dont conform.
> That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent.
This tired, unresearched, and common "rebuttal" of libertarian ideals is completely false.
This tired, unresearched, and common "rebuttal" of libertarian ideals is completely false.
Friedman's model does not assume that people are selfish rational actors. It assumes that people have goals and that they tend to take actions they believe will accomplish those goals.
"take actions they believe will accomplish those goals". Well there you go: quite wrong!
People aren't at all clear on what they want, nor how to accomplish it. People respond to impulses and psychological drives not propositionalized goals.
People aren't at all clear on what they want, nor how to accomplish it. People respond to impulses and psychological drives not propositionalized goals.
I can't imagine how governments could be a good idea if your description of people is accurate.
[deleted]
Can we try to keep (the deeply discretited) Hayek and the Chicago school, not to mention over-complicated philosophical jargon out of the argument? I would content that you should liberate yourself from the received wisdom of your philosophy course, and think for yourself.
The issue is simple: is protection of local industry justified in the face of globalization. Obliquely (not orthogonally), are local businesses adding social value, or is lowest cost the absolute and only barometer of utility. Only once we have answered these questions can we decide if Amazon is correct or not, and it is not going to help to cite a bunch of dead people, who, in my opinion, are very clearly responsible for the ills of our current society.
Far better, citing The Economist Style Guide, "think what you want to say, then say it as simply as possible".
The issue is simple: is protection of local industry justified in the face of globalization. Obliquely (not orthogonally), are local businesses adding social value, or is lowest cost the absolute and only barometer of utility. Only once we have answered these questions can we decide if Amazon is correct or not, and it is not going to help to cite a bunch of dead people, who, in my opinion, are very clearly responsible for the ills of our current society.
Far better, citing The Economist Style Guide, "think what you want to say, then say it as simply as possible".
In addition, I "cite[d] a bunch of dead people" because I was responding to a criticism of libertarianism in general, not of my specific beliefs.
In that light, it is most appropriate to discuss the views of exemplars and intellectual fathers of a particular strain of libertarianism. My personal views are of little consequence to the discussion, considering that I have had no influence on libertarian ideology, and that my opinions depart from most of my fellow libertarian-minded folk in a number of ways.
In that light, it is most appropriate to discuss the views of exemplars and intellectual fathers of a particular strain of libertarianism. My personal views are of little consequence to the discussion, considering that I have had no influence on libertarian ideology, and that my opinions depart from most of my fellow libertarian-minded folk in a number of ways.
Possibly the most pretentious post I've ever read.
The issue may be simple, but it doesn't have a thing to do with what you're talking about. Amazon operates in France. It's a local business. Next question?
The issue may be simple, but it doesn't have a thing to do with what you're talking about. Amazon operates in France. It's a local business. Next question?
Clearly the point is that Amazon is also a global business, and therefore, through economies of scale, is able to dominate businesses that are small or purely local. Moreover arguably it has monopoly power, exacerbating the issue futher. It is clear that you have not thought this through.
> The issue is simple: is protection of local industry justified in the face of globalization.
I don't think that issue is simple, but my answer is no, and my reasoning is similar to why I don't think that protection of the horse and carriage industry should be protected in the face of the nascent automobile industry.
I don't think that issue is simple, but my answer is no, and my reasoning is similar to why I don't think that protection of the horse and carriage industry should be protected in the face of the nascent automobile industry.
Discredited by your priors, for your priors, maybe. All kinds of people here are busily engaged in the act of thinking for themselves. Just because their received wisdom doesn't align with your received wisdom doesn't mean you need to "liberate" anyone with your One True Faith.
[deleted]
I don't think that the proposals of most libertarians are any more or less complex than the proposals of American liberals, or American conservatives, or democratic socialists, or fascists, etc. Certain aspects of plans obvious vary in complexity, but that's hardly the distinguishing factor.
You're just encapsulating reality properly. Laws go with what they go with, they're like a part of specific things.
For example, if it were impossible to create laws regarding traffic signs, it would still be possible to achieve a similar 4-way intersection, with cars stopping for each other - it would have to physically prevent passage from one side to the other, alternative the open direction, like gates or whatever. Can you imagine if that were at every intersection?
Or you can just put up 3 lights on a timer, and a bit of law and add it to the list of stuff the system handles.
So complaining about "laws for every little thing" is a really poor way of looking at things. What maritime traffic laws apply to you? or hazardous waste laws? or commercial construction laws? or banking regulation laws? etvcetc.
One answer is "all of them" but the other is "none of them". They're really part of that aspect of activity, not really part of one long codebook of everything you have to obey all the time.
You can go weeks without even thinking about the law. But if you start do something regulated you haven't done before, it might be your first thought. This is as it should be - the law is like an API for a friendly reality.
Just look at places with total lawlessness and lack of rule of law. That is not a preferable starting point for any project or endeavor you might conceivably participate in.
For example, if it were impossible to create laws regarding traffic signs, it would still be possible to achieve a similar 4-way intersection, with cars stopping for each other - it would have to physically prevent passage from one side to the other, alternative the open direction, like gates or whatever. Can you imagine if that were at every intersection?
Or you can just put up 3 lights on a timer, and a bit of law and add it to the list of stuff the system handles.
So complaining about "laws for every little thing" is a really poor way of looking at things. What maritime traffic laws apply to you? or hazardous waste laws? or commercial construction laws? or banking regulation laws? etvcetc.
One answer is "all of them" but the other is "none of them". They're really part of that aspect of activity, not really part of one long codebook of everything you have to obey all the time.
You can go weeks without even thinking about the law. But if you start do something regulated you haven't done before, it might be your first thought. This is as it should be - the law is like an API for a friendly reality.
Just look at places with total lawlessness and lack of rule of law. That is not a preferable starting point for any project or endeavor you might conceivably participate in.
> For example, if it were impossible to create laws regarding traffic signs, it would still be possible to achieve a similar 4-way intersection, with cars stopping for each other - it would have to physically prevent passage from one side to the other, alternative the open direction, like gates or whatever.
In complex organized sports like football (association or American, take your pick), there are lots of rules about the movement of players, the flow of the game, etc. that are generally followed, and penalties are generally well enforced when the rules are not followed. And yet there are no laws behind these rules. It would appear that complex rules can be created and enforced by mechanisms other than law.
In complex organized sports like football (association or American, take your pick), there are lots of rules about the movement of players, the flow of the game, etc. that are generally followed, and penalties are generally well enforced when the rules are not followed. And yet there are no laws behind these rules. It would appear that complex rules can be created and enforced by mechanisms other than law.
OP's beef was with the existence of complex rules - not that the complex rules have force of law. You and the other respondent gave examples of where complex rules will arise even if the state doesn't come up with them. Presumably the "coder in Sacha" would hate all those "if/else" statements just as much.
But they just don't apply to the OP - unless the OP becomes a football coach or starts operating a fishery, he can just ignore them.
(I did mean to start my original comment "You're just not encapsulating reality properly".)
But they just don't apply to the OP - unless the OP becomes a football coach or starts operating a fishery, he can just ignore them.
(I did mean to start my original comment "You're just not encapsulating reality properly".)
Just look at places with total lawlessness and lack of rule of law. That is not a preferable starting point for any project or endeavor you might conceivably participate in.
Yes, but the alternative to a huge number of laws is not necessarily total lawlessness and lack of rule of law.
And in fact, laws are not even the only way of regulating activities - the are plenty of other ways of setting and enforcing rules. See the work of Elinor Ostrom, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics†, on the the community-based governance of the commons.
† not a "real" Nobel prize, I know
Yes, but the alternative to a huge number of laws is not necessarily total lawlessness and lack of rule of law.
And in fact, laws are not even the only way of regulating activities - the are plenty of other ways of setting and enforcing rules. See the work of Elinor Ostrom, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics†, on the the community-based governance of the commons.
† not a "real" Nobel prize, I know
If you are programming something that doesn't want people to cross the street except at crosswalks (for safety and traffic efficiency reasons), then you would code in a wall along the roads with gaps for crosswalks.
Reality has many more variables, like cost, beauty, physics, etc.
There are many minor laws that are necessary (don't show your penis to children, don't poop on the ground) then there are some that are driven by other reasons such as greed, self-interest, and population control (drug laws, surveillance laws) then there are other laws that are a grey area such as congress being exempt from insider trading. Safety is important too, (seatbelts, shining lasers at airplanes). Then there are the religious laws that are probably unnecessary (can't buy alcohol on Sundays).
I think that laws should have mandatory expiration times or a review process to ensure they are still relevant. The great thing about the US is that each state can have different laws and each can be a test-bed to see what works out best, it's not necessarily used like that but it's a good idea in theory.
Reality has many more variables, like cost, beauty, physics, etc.
There are many minor laws that are necessary (don't show your penis to children, don't poop on the ground) then there are some that are driven by other reasons such as greed, self-interest, and population control (drug laws, surveillance laws) then there are other laws that are a grey area such as congress being exempt from insider trading. Safety is important too, (seatbelts, shining lasers at airplanes). Then there are the religious laws that are probably unnecessary (can't buy alcohol on Sundays).
I think that laws should have mandatory expiration times or a review process to ensure they are still relevant. The great thing about the US is that each state can have different laws and each can be a test-bed to see what works out best, it's not necessarily used like that but it's a good idea in theory.
Basically, all law should be open source and it's content managed via pull requests.
I would prefer being able to propose, modify, and vote on every federal, state, and local law via my computer.
That would require a national id system, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it's not like there aren't several database of those currently.
Congress should be able to override laws that passe public votes (if the decision by congress is 75%+), and the POTUS should be able to override the decision of congress.
At least we should test this idea in one state. If it is successful then roll it out to other states, then nationwide.
It would be nice to see more public discussion on ways to improve government and processes that would actually make these ideas possible to implement. Unfortunately those in power don't want to give up their power even for the good of the country, so that makes it very difficult.
That would require a national id system, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it's not like there aren't several database of those currently.
Congress should be able to override laws that passe public votes (if the decision by congress is 75%+), and the POTUS should be able to override the decision of congress.
At least we should test this idea in one state. If it is successful then roll it out to other states, then nationwide.
It would be nice to see more public discussion on ways to improve government and processes that would actually make these ideas possible to implement. Unfortunately those in power don't want to give up their power even for the good of the country, so that makes it very difficult.
Here's a recent presentation on that topic:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Mjo8GU-zBs_suk_8eg_Y...
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Mjo8GU-zBs_suk_8eg_Y...
When life is a virtual reality...
I agree. France should simply ban Amazon completely as an example to the next company that thinks about trying to take advantage of loopholes.
Instead of making yet more laws to patch the mess of old laws (ad nauseum) how about getting rid of a law, i.e the Land Tax. Then brick and mortars would have a natural improvement in their circumstance competing with online retailers.
They could go one step further and offer "rewards" at the end of the calendar year that would make up for the 1 cent.
I've never seen such an open & deliberate case of regulatory capture.
The new law forbids retailers to apply the discount if the book is delivered but allows them to apply the discount on the delivery fees (which is useless to Amazon who offers the delivery).
The final effect is that books on Amazon are 5% + 1 cent more expensive than in physical stores.