Hacker News Reader

Comment by Asbostos | Hacker News Reader

But what's the alternative? In many cases nobody really knows what's in our best interests. So with any protection from "phishermen", you'd suffer from other inefficiencies or harm caused by good opportunities being blocked. Just the fact that research is still ongoing as to the effects of alcohol says that nobody could really decide if it's a net positive or negative for each individual.

You only have to look at laws forbidding marijuana use or homosexual acts to realize that governments aren't competent to make these decisions since they just reflect what the popular opinion of the "phools" already is.

View on HN

> In many cases nobody really knows what's in our best interests.

I may not know what is in my best interest, but I know what isn't - someone else lying to me and cheating me to pursue their own interest. The problem is hard because perfect solution is AI-complete and pretty much requires mind-reading. But we can at least try and eliminate the obvious problems. We could, for instance, start punishing marketers and salesmen for lying.

I'm sure most developed countries do that by fining businesses for false advertising, which would incentivise the businesses to pass the punishment on to the staff who did it. Lies aren't really the problem though, fooling us with truths we don't understand is.

About tobacco causing lung cancer? That's been widely known for decades but rates of smoking are increasing globally so it's not just false information.

> I'm sure most developed countries do that by fining businesses for false advertising, which would incentivise the businesses to pass the punishment on to the staff who did it.

In principle yes, but in practice the false advertising laws are way, way too lax.

> Lies aren't really the problem though, fooling us with truths we don't understand is.

True, but companies now tell bullshit that is so obvious to see through that it's often very clear whether they want to scam you or not. This again should be punished but currently isn't.

Why not just ban advertising altogether?

Sounds extreme perhaps, but think about it... Isn't advertising all about trying to convince you to buy something you don't need? If you needed it (or even just wanted it), you wouldn't need advertising, you'd seek it out on your own.

The counter argument to this is that advertising serves useful discovery for new technologies.

Which is of course 99% bullshit since the vast majority is emotive and manipulative.

But to avoid this you could make advertising regulation 'white list' style. Only text based, only non-emotive descriptions of product function.

I mean take cola, their adverts are largely around the subtext of 'if you drink this you will have more friends, if you do not drink this you will be more lonely.' Of course this is never stated openly it's all in the subtext which given Colas efficient market defying profits seems to be incredibly effective.

> non-emotive descriptions of product function.

This sounds very similar to the rules that non-commercial stations are bound to, per the FCC. Fines can be issued for underwriting spots that contain calls to action, price information, qualitative claims, or are simply too long.[0]

[0] http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/fcc-fines-f...

That's throwing out the baby with the bath water. Advertising serves a modicum of a public good, in that it's informative. If, say, I buy some fabric conditioner and quite like its effects but think it smells too intense, I might change brand. If I see an ad for the old brand saying 'now with a new and improved fragrance', that's genuinely useful information. Perhaps the problem I had with an otherwise satisfactory product is gone.

There's plenty of truly bad advertising out there and it definitely needs stronger regulation, but lets not be overly enthusiastic about it.

> "If I see an ad for the old brand saying 'now with a new and improved fragrance', that's genuinely useful information. Perhaps the problem I had with an otherwise satisfactory product is gone."

If that's the only reason to keep advertising, it can easily be replaced by independent consumer advice, similar to 'Which?' magazine but with a much wider remit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Which%3F

But smoking is increasing in countries where the health effects aren't as well known, and decreasing in countries where they are.

Also, smoking companies spent a very long time making sure that the now widely-known health effects weren't so widely known. Lies and confusion. Some of it still happens, especially in '3rd world' countries.

They adjust their strategies to local conditions. In EU they can do little. Elsewhere, they actually sue countries[0] to keep their rights to advertise death.

[0] - https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8?t=486

I work with a fair number of expensively-educated persons in their 20s. A surprising number of them smoke.

A surprising amount of doctors and paramedics smoke. It apparently helps them to deal with the stresses of the job.

>"We could, for instance, start punishing marketers and salesmen for lying."

We already do, and it's called misleading advertising, or plain out fraud.

Edit, I see someone else also pointed this out.

I am referring to the practical reality - we don't do it enough. Fraud is defined in such a way that lets companies still get away with blatant lies and abusive behaviour. The laws are also not enforced strongly enough.

Case in point: want to bet that VW will actually get hurt by the emissions cheating scandal?

Fine, but those are failings of the state, not of the free-market or competition.

The whole point of the "free-market" is that there are repercussions or effects for what we determine to be bad behavior (with or without a state). And currently, individuals are being misled (a tad bit ironic) by the state in the sense that we all "assume" that bad market actors are being punished, when in fact they aren't always.

Additionally, people bought VW cars under the assumption that they were thoroughly regulated and tested by the government.

VW won't get "hurt" as such, probably. But they should be mandated to submit a model that doesn't cheat, have it be tested, approved, and then give that model to all the recalled cars.

Ironically, discussions like these are what eventually drove me to consider non-state solutions to the problems around us. I looked around and was presented with really countless scenarios/problems that are "bad" or "unwanted", and the state not fixing it despite claims by them that it is a problem. E.g. car accidents/fatalities, 100+ years later, and still happening even in civilized countries.

> And currently, individuals are being misled (a tad bit ironic) by the state in the sense that we all "assume" that bad market actors are being punished, when in fact they aren't always.

> Additionally, people bought VW cars under the assumption that they were thoroughly regulated and tested by the government.

There are, in fact, but not enough. All legally available cars are thoroughly regulated and tested - that's why they don't explode on the road or poison people to death as they drive by. Every product out there is regulated against direct health hazards, and that's the only reason you can safely shop.

Also, the government did the testing for emissions, it's VW that cheated on them. You could question the quality of those tests but then again, if you know you'll have to test fraudsters, why don't just go ahead and arrest them instead of investing tons of resources in more fraud-proof tests? The government probably saved a lot of money trusting the companies to act in good faith. VW has just abused this trust, and it's entirely their fault.

> Fine, but those are failings of the state, not of the free-market or competition.

If those are failings of state not being strict enough, then let's state the corollary - that free market / competition are not saviours, but savage beasts that need to be controlled in order to put their power to good use.

> Ironically, discussions like these are what eventually drove me to consider non-state solutions to the problems around us. I looked around and was presented with really countless scenarios/problems that are "bad" or "unwanted", and the state not fixing it despite claims by them that it is a problem. E.g. car accidents/fatalities, 100+ years later, and still happening even in civilized countries.

I also had a similar turn towards non-state solutions, mostly because it's becoming evident that you couldn't design a system less capable of dealing with actual, serious issues than modern democracy. I looked briefly at private businesses for solutions and while they seem to be a much more efficient instrument than politics, the private sector is filled with even more corrupt people than there are in public. Which makes me both depressed and cheering for those few individuals and companies who honestly try to do some good.

I don't think anyone, not even ancaps, disagrees that market participants can be fraudulent or destructive. The disagreement is about what to do about it.

It's not that they 'can' be, but they will be (and are). A lot of people are in denial about it.

Who is in denial? That sounds like a strawman.

You're right, I admit I was weasel-wording there a bit, but that's because of hurry (as I'm again on HN procrastinating before life-or-death (for me) deadline).

By 'a lot of people' I meant the many people - from some of friends and colleagues to some members of various communities I participate in, HN included - that seem to be very convinced that total deregulation is the right thing to do and the market will turn benevolent if you remove all interference. I understand that there are subproblems for which deregulation indeed seems to be the right way to go; personally, I try to evaluate things on case-by-case basis. But it seems obvious that total, absolute deregulation would be disastrous and yet there are real people who seem to actually want exactly that absolute.

Ah, yes. The confusion is assuming that advocating for deregulation means one thinks that markets are perfect - it doesn't. It just means they think that deregulation is not a good solution - much like someone can advocate against blood-letting as a cure for cancer without believing that cancer doesn't exist.

For example, in this case the regulation didn't prevent VW from polluting, but it did help them fool people by giving fraudulent approval to the cars - it's not hard to argue it actually did worse than if it hadn't existed. Then there's regulatory capture, misguided policies that promote worse solutions, etc.

In addition to what TeMPOral said, we could ask for more balance in access to information. For example, why couldn't everything that the producer knows about the product (results of internal testing, how it was produced, what were the costs involved) be available to the customer? It seems only a fair deal to me. And it could be done in manner of not "forcing" anyone to do that - for example, only companies that do that would be eligible for government subsidies or contracts.

(Ironically, the optimal price by free markets is only proven when access to information is perfect and actors are rational. But then you don't really need the price to make the decision, do you? You can already calculate everything in your head.)

But in general, there is problem with complexity of things getting out of hand. It's impossible to ask the customers to rationally evaluate everything, experts need to do that anyway.

And I think, similar to what Chomsky said in "Responsibility of Intellectuals", I believe there should be a moral code for engineers to provide good solutions. Today, technical experts to often wash off their hands by thinking that the customer knows the best (usually in indirect way - by not pushing enough against businessmen, by believing too much in individualism).

For example, why couldn't everything that the producer knows about the product (results of internal testing, how it was produced, what were the costs involved) be available to the customer?

How would you know that the public is getting everything that the producer knows about the product?

It would be illegal to hide it. Everyone involved in hiding could be prosecuted, just like in any other criminal conspiracy. We try to do today pretty much the same thing with the government. The fact that it is imperfect doesn't mean that it's a bad idea.

And of course, the people in the government who write the rules and regulations, aren't rational humans, either.

No, they're prefect robots, always rational, and always taking care about the humanity and never themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com