Since we created it by ratifying the Constitution, wouldn’t it take an amendment to,. in effect, de-ratify it?
I am not saying it is not possible, only that it seems to me that is the way it would need to be done, short of a coup, which is probably not what you have in mind, right?
After all, it was before I was born and all, but I heard rumors that a bunch of states actually tried to unilaterally dissociate themselves from the document, and that didn’t turn out too well for them, at least in the short term
Really? Because Whenever I read any research or texts about economics, they emphasize how little understood real life interactions are, that the more of a real economy you try to model, the less the basic models apply. Sort of like physics in that regard.
But maybe I misunderstood - all there is to know about economics is i the first semester micro text?
And you are suggesting that your plan is demonstrably optimal by what measure?
OK< but then the burden is on you to demonstrate that the current system is sufficiently burdensome to meet that bar
So far I see you assert it, but I haven’t seen any links to anyone looking into it deeper than that. I have seen a bunch of economic/law stuff in my day (not my area of expertise, but I read it if I find it and find it interesting), so I at elast know what the proper arguments might look like. I am sure someone must have written about this in detail, have you seen it?
Says you.
That is silly. The test failure rate is not maximized, that would mean NO ONE would ever pass. Sorry. My background is in optimization algorithms, and that is first semester stuff
So you suggest what, that the man on the street should create the test? Are there other licensing schemes anywhere that have the features you wish to have, so we can compare?
Hey, BTW, have you ever taken the bar exam?
You do know there is an onerous “education” requirement before anyone can even take the exam too. Doesn’t that concern you more than the test itself? It is not equally available to all, right?
Actually, there are other market hurdles too in some licensed professions, such as law. Have you identified them? I have been thinking about more practical ways to make lawyering (and some others) more market based, but the licensing details are not really that much of a concern in my approach.
And of course there are other approaches too, such as having people with different responsibilities - paralegals, eg. The medical profession is much more specialized, for example. That is one possibility to consider extending.
Are you suggesting that people who fail are somehow more competent than those that pass? Not sure what you are saying with this, although you have said it a couple of times.
Why not simply have continuing education requirements if the goal is to make sure people who already passed are still qualified in a rapidly changing world?
How would you account for people, who, in their natural career progression, have specialized and no longer need the wide and deep detailed knowledge they were tested on at first?
Would you continue to test wide and deep, thus killing incentives to specialize, and perversely affecting the market’s ability to deliver needed services?
Or would you allow them to test on fundamentals and their specialty, thus offering no advantage to the new entrant who still can’t take that test?
This frankly sounds like the talk of someone that has a different set of issue with lawyers to me, or who didn’t get into law school, or who did not pass the exam, or any or all of the above. Is that true?
So, anyway, continuing on, in your dream world, few would fail the retest, but the market would be wide open to new entry.
What does your first semester macro and micro courses say about that? Seems like there is a supply and demand thing going on then, no? Adn with an oversupply, the market will need a way to separate quality from non-quality, but only after many disasters on the micro level that create a call for regulation of some sort.
Which, wouldn’t that bring us right back where we are today, except we’d have to find a way to weed the poorly qualified entrants out of the market?
Well, then maybe you are not making your case as persuasively as you would like. I understand it makes sense in your head. I agree market reform of the law profession is worth considering. I am trying to see if what makes sense in your head can, by your expressing it in actual words, start to make sense in other heads.
So far, I get that you are trying, but the case is not made persuasively.
Yes you did, and that is a metaphor that is meaningless in practice. I can say “cash is the grease that makes retail gears turn” and you might say “a strong highway/road system is the grease that makes retail gears turn” and we would both be right, and so would others with similar ideas. It is meaningless in practice except as to introduce a much deeper discussion.
I didn’t ignore them. I almost spit out my drink, but I was too polite to say so at the time. I really did notice them though
No, it goes to your persuasiveness. You chose the example, presumably to make a point. Regardless of the final outcome, you must know that intellectual property laws in the US and elsewhere are under heavy pressure and in flux, and likely to remain that way for quite some time, right?
So when you say “someone absolutely did not break the law” in some case in that area, then you are wrong. It is unclear what the outcome is, and that is in the news just about every day. That you don;t incorporate that into your argument correctly indicates that the rest of it may not be well thought out either, to the truly interested reader.
Like I said, it is not that there is not a case to be made. I don’t really want to debate you here, but to see how sharp your argument already is, and to leave you with a few ideas for sharpening it further perhaps if you raise it again sometime.
I don’t necessarily disagree on the specifics of the case or the potential defense. I don’t have details handy, but I have seen other similar cases.
But, he may n fact have been trying to learn a trade, which makes it a market-based action, one with a profit motive.
And once you get into that, you are talking about risks and rewards. I would suggest that most kids and families in similar situations misjudged the risks and rewards. I don’t mean to say that they should have been cowed by a potential lawsuit, but I do mean to say there were ways to navigate the legal system, if they had properly studied the risks and rewards of their economic activities before they proceeded with them. It is not fair to suggest that a “kid” can execute economic activities completely dissociated from the legal system.
Either it was a protest, in which case you suffer the consequences in order to make a broader point, or it was a business activity, in which case you identify and evaluate your risks and rewards. It is not like this guy was the only fish in the sea, he would have had powerful friends if he had reached out earlier, that’s what I am saying. That he didn’t reach out and now suffers, is entirely predictable and his own fault. Now he has to face the case on the terms of the complainant instead of being in a position to drive the dialog. That is his fault, no one else’s.
And that goes to intellectual property, and the basis of intellectual property law is what?
Maybe maybe not. It is in flux, and we shall see someday how it settles out. You can say what you wish for (and we might be in agreement there) but you can’t say what the state of the law is NOW is certain about anything really.
Right, I know that is your point. It is commonly made, and has been for 10 years now. As though those are the only options. That is my point. He had options, but he (and others too) hung himself out to dry by waling out on a limb (to mix metaphors )
The fallacies are yours my friend. Most of them are of the “assertion does not make it so” variety. This quote contains a fine example. “fundamentally indecent”, what does that even mean, except to demonize that which you don’t support?
OK. I retract it. You are an expert and fully aware that the basis of intellectual law is in the Constitution, and are aware of the reason it gives for having these laws in the first place.
Still, I’d think that you would reference that clause instead of saying things are “fundamentally indecent” without explaining HOW they are indecent or explaining what the fundamentals you refer to are.
How precisely is that going to change under your new licensing plan?
Those are all risks that were available to be known and evaluated to the actor before they acted. So what? They evaluated, and then stuff happens. Lots of stuff happens to an underfunded tech company that can put it out of business. That is part and parcel of a high-risk business, especially an underfunded one.
But no matter.
How would your proposed licensing scheme change the risk-reward issue for such a startup? By making a junior, very cheap attorney available to argue and negotiate a complex case?
That is a legislative matter than, not a matter regrding the licensing of attorneys.
Well, you raised it, and as an example of cases where your proposed licensing scheme would change things, for the better in your mind I suppose, it is as good a place as any to start.
People are free to represent themselves if they are sure of their case. They are also free to organize in known and maybe novel ways as to fund the case, which is more where my own thoughts on reform lie.
And at some point, you have to move from general speculation to practical implementation. That is why I keep saying, ok, how does this work on the day-to-day level?
I missed that when you kept using works like “absolutely” and “certainly” and “without doubt” or their synonyms. I thought that meant you were in fact certain. My bad. I will go highlight all those words in my dictionary now
I encourage you to think things through. Play the devils advocate, look at every word, or phrase. Ask yourself, what are the underlying assumptions here? Are they really true? Do the conclusions really follow? It is a good exercise for refining an argument, or perhaps finding it is not as solid as it first appears. No shame in that.
Hmm, I didn’t read it closely, but I think the internet brought news very recently that the economic value of a degree is dropping rapidly compared to the alternative. I thought I saw that headline, you might want to check to see if it is available in your cave
So you are all about a marker called a “degree” that indicates something of worth in the job marketplace, but for attorneys, no markers are allowed that indicate to the market what they have accomplished? Hmmm…
Actually, you should always do that, if only so you stop using words of such certainty in your own arguments.
I am sorry, is there a place where “future needed skills” are detailed at a sufficient level of detail that I can acquire them today? I have been in some of the highest tech startup operations in the world over almost 30 years, I attended a top university, and looking back, I don’t see how it is possible to predict and teach the skills that will be needed across a career.
That means, like the kid with the search engine, choosing an educational branch (Or none at all) is an economic decision, made with uncertain information as best as one can. There is risk at the decision time, and risks to be managed all along the way in a career.
So how can you say that people are not focusing on "future needed skills, when that is another meaningless phrase? People make economic decisions based on what information they have available, how could they do otherwise?
Uh, OK, even if that last bit is true, which it may not be, or at least for much longer, what does your first semester economics course say about that? That you might pay a percentage of the future value of a product or service to acquire it, and the fraction is determined by the risk and utility of the object, right?
Perhaps education was UNDER priced in the past, rather than OVER priced now? or maybe we are just seeing a change in the nature of any subsidization schemes, a market based movement to let people pay the true value as I just described?
Note, I am not suggesting any particular scheme, only that there are plenty of valid ways to consider it, and since you lectured me on first semester economics, I am going to hammer you with that each time you haven’t used the same basic tools you say are available to you
That’s a nice goal, but it seems pretty non-market based to me.
One way that might happen - if and when we stand down militarily, we sill surely offer all those who served a new and generous GI bill, and that could change the nature of higher education the way that happened post WWII.
I’m not sure I quite get what you’re implying, but here’s what I wrote: “I’m not here making a Milton Friedmanesque argument that these licensing procedures should be done away with completely…” Not. That is, I was not claiming to follow in Friedman’s footsteps.
So, the vast majority of people favor government regulation as the way to go, and in particular favor less efficient implementations.
Interesting!
Hey, not that I am a huge fan or anything, but have you ever heard of the “Reagan Revolution”? I am pretty sure that even 30 years later, the general population is not in favor of more and inefficient government regulation
Only two of my five links refers to a case of the the ACLU suing to prevent endorsement of religion by government employees. Mary Allen attended Pace High School in Florida, where students and everyone else had freedom of religion and freedom of speech until the ACLU sued to have those freedoms taken away. She was banned from speaking because she was a Christian as part of the actions that the school took in a (failed) attempt to avoid more legal bullying and censorship.
For the purposes of this thread, however, those truths are not relevant. The OP asked us to name changes that we’d make in the law. I would change the law so that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are granted to everyone including government employees, as the First Amendment says, in contrast to the ACLU’s stance that only some people should have those freedoms.
Then what does the fact that you have to misrepresent what’s in my links say about your priorities?
Funny that! That is nt what the 1st says out here in California where I live. Here, it says the government shall make no laws in that regard etc… It is also my understanding that in the US, rights are not granted by government, but inherent in the people.
Perhaps you understand differently?
Even so, for the purpose of this thread, how would you envision “government employees” exercising these rights that you granted them while still complying with the line of precedents regarding the Establishment Clause? Or did you throw all that out too? (which is allowed for the purposes of the thread, so if you are jsut tossing it and the legal history that goes with it, just say so to be clear and focus the debate please).
In contrast, the basics of the intro microeconomic models are kept for higher level analysis. They are, of course, expanded upon in professional research, formalized, and then applied to different situations, but a good understanding of intro micro will open to the door to the vast majority of high level micro research. There are holes. The models aren’t perfect (see, for example, behavioral economics). But as for the concepts of market power, consumer surplus, and deadweight loss? They all stick around, just as the froshes learn them.
If you wish to understand the costs of market power, the essentials can be found in an intro micro text.
And that is a burden I’ve met. I’ve clearly outlined the cause of the deadweight loss, which is a significant economic cost. In contrast, no one has managed to demonstrate the benefits of the current professional licensing system. There is, yes, a public interest theory that the licensing, even as it current works, counteracts the lemon problem of asymmetric information, where the seller of a professional service knows much better how incompetent they are, whereas the potential clients do not. According to this completely unsubstantiated idea, social welfare is improved by the hurdles.
There’s no evidence for this, as there is for the costs of rent seeking. I mean, it’s a good, good thing that I’m not giving legal advice out of the trunk of my car. But how good a thing? How many people would actually hire me to represent them? We don’t know. This benefit, whatever it is, is murky. In fact, if no one would hire me, or any other incompetents like me, in greater numbers than they already do hire currently practicing incompetent licensed workers, then this benefit would not actually exist at all, but be a wash. There’s no evidence that the extra costly doofuses like me who entered the market would actually matter on net.
In the context of this discussion, I’m putting a real, demonstrable cost against an intangible benefit. So yes, the burden has been met against the present system. (And honestly, I don’t know if I could meet the burden of proof that Milton Friedman would put upon me. I said before that proving Friedman wrong might be impossible without running a real world experiment. I didn’t agree with the man about a great many things, but damned if he didn’t know his shit.)
You’re not demonstrating any of that knowledge.
No one passing is not, in fact, a maximization of the system. There is a political component here, which means we’re dealing with a constrained optimization problem. The professionals could not possibly show up after being subpoenaed by the state legislature and defend themselves with a 0% pass rate. They can do so with a 1% pass rate, e.g. state plumbers of my former home, according to the chair of my old econ department. They can also do so by mandating education requirements, e.g. four years direct costs of undergrad and three more years worth of law school education, plus the opportunity cost of seven years of education, easily adding up to an actual cost of over 100,000 to enter the profession, even if you attend a state university.
You simply can’t have a population of professionals who’ve spent seven years of their life and over a hundred thousand dollars (either in direct costs, or in the costs they’ve given up after going to school) fail to pass the exam. It would not do, politically. The details differ from state to state, but the basic principle here is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I first got tuned into this very topic all those years ago in my first intro micro class. Ah, the good old days. Years later, when I become a teacher (TA) of that very same class, it’s a topic I tried to bring up with my own students. It is that important.
I said before it was a necessity that we rely on professionals to write the evaluation process. So no, the man on the street is not qualified.
Obviously, I still want the professionals to create the evaluation process. They’re the only ones who can do it. All I want to do is make sure that the professionals are themselves tested periodically by their own evaluation process, so that they have an incentive to test what’s most important to their jobs, the information that they already know, instead of testing irrelevancies. I wrote extensively about the incentive process of the test writers. That incentive process only works if the professionals must periodically meet their own requirements.
Not all of them, no. Some of the people fail because they’re jackasses. But yes, some of the people who fail would be as fully competent as those who pass. Thus my push to have a system that evaluates the established and the entrants equally, so that the evaluation tests those skills most useful to professionals in the field (for which they would least have to study) instead of the tests adding extraneous information.
Continuing education requirements do not change the perverse incentives that lead to making the original qualification hurdle, for new entrants, harder than it needs to be. Continuing education requirements are almost inevitably a cake-walk, because they’re drawn up by professionals to “test” themselves.
This is a false dichotomy.
There would be every incentive to divide the qualifications process to focus on the fundamentals of different subdivisions (say, for example, contract law vs. criminal). The new entrant would be tested on the fundamentals of their chosen subdivision. But that wouldn’t kill market entry. Not at all. The professionals in criminal law would still have to take their test periodically. They would want it to test the most useful knowledge for competence in their field, and only the most useful knowledge, so that they could pass it again regularly. And that, in turn, would make the test passable by competent entrants who knew their crime. Viola: a new criminal lawyer.
And now you rely on yet another ad hominem.
The law is just a notable example. I said in my original post in this thread that this would apply to all professions: bail bondsmen, hair dressers, real estate agents, whatever. I chose the bar exam because it’s the most notable example. You ran with that example in your original response to me. But there’s nothing special about law here, except its status as a particularly important field.
When you get tired of making up nonsense to attribute to me, you’ve been questioning my qualifications and motives, this time with sour grapes. This is just a lazy series of fallacies
I can’t tell what you’re arguing here.
What “disasters on the micro level”? Are you talking about failures of incompetence? Are you talking about new entrants, who can pass the same evaluation process that the professionals periodically pass, but somehow mess up all over the place even more than the professionals we have now? If that’s what you’re arguing, then you’re assuming facts not in evidence. This is the “murky” benefit of licensing regulation I talked about above. We have no idea that this would be a genuinely significant problem, unlike the wealth of evidence we do have for the behavior of organizations with market power.
It might make all the papers if we introduced this licensing system and a lawyer fell asleep during his clients’ execution hearing. But we have that happen anyway. We simply don’t know the exact social benefits of licensing as they exist, especially since we can cherry-pick incidents of incompetence.
We regulated first, and didn’t ask questions later. Once we started asking questions, we started to realize that the regulation didn’t stand up to its original justification. But too late.
My statement, regardless of how accurate a metaphor you think it was, clearly expressed my view that the practice of law adds value. You then threw out a sarcastic straw comment accusing me of implying that the law had no value, directly contrary to what I’d said.
I’m not going to argue metaphors with you (even metaphors that are common among professionals because of their usefulness). But I am going to point out when the things you attribute to me are directly contrary to what I’ve already said.
Here are the words I typed: “I don’t know if the student was in the right based on the law, but even if he had been in the right, he couldn’t defend himself.”
Those are the words that should have appeared on your screen. And yet you do not respond to those words. Instead, you attribute to me other words of opposite meaning, and then accuse me of being “wrong” about that position that I do not, in fact, hold. It’s like you’re only reading every other sentence, and filling in the blanks with whatever absurd notions catch your fancy.
Exactly none of my arguments have been based on intellectual property law.
The original post, from the first post I wrote in this thread, was talking about the costs of civil litigation in general.
This has nothing to do with my licensing plan.
My original points were numbered. The different numbers were an indication that they were different plans. Though number three does directly follow number two, the evidence I provide in favor of point number three is still not related to point number two. That is because two and three are different numbers, representing different plans.
I cited a case of litigation that emptied out the entire savings of a student who was sued, which would have bankrupted his family if he had decided to fight it, according to both his uncle, a lawyer, and another lawyer who interviewed him for the book. This lawsuit would have bankrupted his family regardless of the underlying merit of the suit. I then drew the parallel to other businesses that can be sued into the ground without cause, because they cannot afford to put up a legal defense against established moneyed interests, thus giving an unfair legal advantage to those established interests at the expense of smaller, less capitalized firms.
And you reply: “So what?”
No. I did not. I did not raise that example with respect to licensing. From my original post in this thread:
Your response to point 3, not point 2.
My response, still related to point 3.
Point of interest: I did say “innocent kids” here, but I hadn’t yet cited the specific lawsuit (though I did have it in mind when I wrote the words). When you asked for the cite, I reviewed it and saw that I didn’t know if he was actually innocent. He hadn’t pirated music, and I noted that he hadn’t pirated music, but there are still other copyright infringements that are unrelated to piracy (e.g. derivative works, or posting the mathematical decryption of protected material). My disgust was about the cost of the defending the case, even if he’d been innocent. From my cite:
This was related to civil law reform, point 3, not professional licensing.
The cost of a legal defense is too high for people to pay, even if they happen to be innocent. But hey, so what?
I did not use such unequivocal language when referring to my own proposals for civil law reform. As I said, I’m not a lawyer. I did use unequivocal language about there being a problem, because yes, there is a problem. In contrast, I used a soft touch for solutions, precisely because I need to study this topic more before coming up with a solution.
And yes, I did use much stronger language with my recommendations about professional licensing. But that was a different argument, based on a different set of facts. My understanding of public finance is extremely good. My understanding of the law, much less so. And then you conflated the two. Somewhere along the line, you lost the thread. That would be a remarkable mistake by itself. It becomes somewhat less remarkable when accompanied by all the other mistakes you’ve made.
I’m going to turn this truck right back around. Here are comments that I made in my very first post in this thread: “I dunno yet. Haven’t thought about it in enough depth.” “I’m going to have to be non-specific here because I’m not a lawyer,” “I don’t know enough about K-12 education to comment intelligently,” “we also need to find a way to remove fraud from the ratings agencies, but fuck if I know how to do that.”, “I don’t know how to work this, either.” That was all together, as I was laying out my initial ideas. Are you noticing some kind of pattern? Maybe the fact that I’m willing to admit when I reach the limits of my present knowledge?
You mention all of these strong words I’ve used, and hey, you’re right. I’ve used some strong words. Certain words. Confident words. And the reason I’ve used them in certain places, and not in others, is that I’ve got a measure of real expertise in some areas, as opposed to others. You haven’t seemed to notice that, though. You keep thinking I want to be a lawyer, or an intellectual property guru or some such, and you haven’t yet seemed to realize what my actual field of study was. While you chew on that, here’s some advice for you:
I encourage you to think things through. Look at the other person’s post from their perspective, for the sake of understanding their underlying point, not for the sake of making shit up and then typing out another snarky “interesting” with an exclamation mark. Ask yourself, are my criticisms really worthwhile? Or am I missing the point that the other person is making, or engaging in various fallacies such as attributing to that person points he did not make, questioning his motives and education, and conflating his evidence for one of his arguments as if it was for another. No shame in doing any of that. But I think there is shame in not doing these things. Or there should be, at least.
Your reading and reasoning have been so unmitigatedly awful in this thread, I’m starting to feel vicariously ashamed on your behalf.
Private returns to education were about 6%, on average, per each additional year of schooling in the 1970s. They climbed to 10% by the 1990s. Notice, please, that that’s 10% higher income for every single additional year of schooling. Obviously, that reaches a limit when folks go for their PhD in the humanities, but still, that’s an extremely large chunk of change for each year of book learnin, and I’ve seen no evidence that that has changed at all.
If you have any actual evidence that that has altered significantly, then post that evidence. But for your information: a smiley is not a cite. Keep in mind, also, that reporters aren’t experts. They get things wrong, and their editors tend to exaggerate the headline beyond the findings in the article if they think it will draw extra readers.
I have said nothing that is even remotely similar to this comment.
It is seriously like you only read every other sentence, and then fill the spaces with the first ridiculous thing that pops into your mind.
You are now conflating my second and fourth proposals.
Human capital is not introductory material. It is damn hard stuff. My undergrad research focused on it (though I’ve moved on to greener pastures since). I don’t have anywhere near a full understanding of it. But that’s why I specifically labelled the section “education experimentation”.
My comment was directly related to the context of Friedman’s belief that government should butt entirely out of professional licensing regulation.
Now seriously, think about that. Don’t attribute to me something I didn’t say. Don’t question my motives. Think about that position. Is that not a minority position? Yes. Yes, it is. Not only is it a minority position, it is so rare that I can’t think of a single person outside of an economics department who would go that far. What about you? How many people are there who you personally know who would advocate that I should be allowed by the government to open my own law firm out of the trunk of my car tomorrow? I’d be surprised if you even knew one.
“Reagan Revolution” be damned. Forget the shallow party slogans and sound bytes, and think about actual beliefs. Do you know even a single person who would advocate that the government shouldn’t regulate licensing at all? It’s one thing for people to say “I’m against inefficient government regulation”, and it’s another thing entirely for them take a stand against the government when the legislation is something they believe they benefit from. No one wants “inefficiency”. It’s just that very few people have formally studied what efficiency is and what conditions bring it about. And for me efficiency is, indeed, a moral concern. I absolutely do think it’s immoral when a special interest benefits at the expense of the whole due to government intervention. The problem is that explaining this concept in any depth can take years. Literally, years. And even if people finally get an intellectual understanding of it, good enough to pass a midterm, that doesn’t mean they actually give a crap about it.
You said I’m not persuasive. Of course I’m not persuasive. I know the importance of marginal cost in the context of a profit maximizing firm. And it took me a long, long damn time to learn its significance. It’s easy for folks to say pretty words like they’re against government “inefficiency”. But when concerns about inefficiency are brought up in real contexts with the full force of technical study behind them, the reaction all too often is somebody who abandons the pretty words as soon as it’s convenient.
Oh yeah. If the senators did have to run for election, and if they could not be held accountable for their votes, they would be able to act as a Senate ought. They should be a check on the House and the popular will.
Look at the "legislative"power we give to unelected judges. Same sort of thing.
As is, the Senate is just a bigger House; it serves no real purpose.
I don’t have time to day to go bit by bit though this, but the first part looks like more of the same, not further explanation. Sorry if I am wrong by virtue of not wading through all of it - I should, but I don’t have time today.
Do you have any cites at all for this economic gobbledygook? It looks to me like you are pulling this strand and that from very shallow waters and tying them together while demonizing every other possibility instead of devising experiments to test hypotheses.
Are you on your own on this, or is it something others may have tried to explain better?
Here is a pdf link to an analysis of the costs/benefits of professional licensing, conveniently titled “What is the Objective of Professional Licensing?” Lucky find. Didn’t know that I’d be able to link something relevant that wasn’t behind a registration wall. But if you haven’t been able to follow my non-technical description, I don’t know that this will be any more accessible.
Another possibility is hitting the wikipedia, with its articles on market power, barriers to market entry, deadweight loss, rent seeking, and artificial scarcity. All of this is related. Deadweight loss is the underlying economic damage, with the other entries related to situations that can cause this damage, many of them overlapping. Again, though, wikipedia can sometimes distract with irrelevant technicalities. If that’s still not enough to clear up the real economic damages (deadweight loss) caused by barriers to market entry, you can check the online course materials for the Principles of Microeconomics class at MIT. The most commonly cited examples of deadweight loss in the course will be the monopoly market structure and its most direct variants, but the economic loss works the same way for other similar restrictions of output.
There is no comparable literature about the benefits of licensing as it currently exists. Which relates to my overall point. There is no proof that this benefit even exists on net. We know very well the damage caused by a closed market, but we don’t know the benefits of social welfare in decreasing asymmetric information with a licensing process. We’re dealing with a clear cost against a murky, and possibly nonexistent, benefit.
I’m not going to teach an intro class here. But if you have questions about the concept of economic efficiency in this context, genuine questions, then I can try to answer them. Or, of course, I can field questions from anyone else who’s still bothering to read what has turned into a treatise. But if you have more distortions of my arguments or irrelevant distractions with regard to my motives or character, then I’m not going to bother.
But if you haven’t been able to follow my non-technical description, I don’t know that this will be any more accessible.
I’m not going to teach an intro class here. But if you have questions about the concept of economic efficiency in this context, genuine questions, then I can try to answer them.
[QUOTE]
You are a little bit too full of yourself here. I can follow your reasoning with my eyes closed. That’s the problem. It is barely sophomore undergrad level work. It is an interesting idea, but I am wondering if anyone academic, or even in politics or policy study has explained it better that you is all. So save us the lectures.
