This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What happens to the actual cost?
This is not true. There are a whole host of things that can be done. Not least of which is to frustrate legal sanctions through the difficulty of distinguishing real from fake.
Making up a position that I never claimed and then seeing that I don't claim it does not imply that we agree.
What happens to the "actual" (that is, nominal/explicit) cost/price of something in the case of 5000000000% inflation? Nothing, in the case that it isn't explicitly changed. So inflation don't real either right? $10 is $10. After all, calculating inflation is just a relative comparison between the general price levels of two different time periods. And, as you've made it clear, relative doesn't count.
See how silly and very much so not like proper economic scholarship this all sounds?
The PROTECT Act of 2003 already makes fake content that would qualify as child pornography if it were real but is also "virtually indistinguishable" from real content just as illegal. (I think this is foolish and self-defeating as artificially generated child pornography that is indistinguishable from the real thing would almost certainly quickly out-compete and destroy almost all of the real thing, particularly new production of it, but oh well. Policymakers gonna make bad policy.)
Well I'm afraid you may have to restate your position then.
I mean, if you want to posit a completely different scenario than one where the cost of a substitute good is decreased, we could ask that question and try to find an answer. There may or may not be one, and it may be either direction or zero, but it's not going to be relevant for the question at hand. IN THIS DISCUSSION, we're talking about a scenario where the cost of a substitute good is decreased. What happens to the actual cost of the good?
There is a very basic, very clear economics answer to this question, squarely within the domain of proper economic scholarship. Why are you simply avoiding addressing the relevant question?
Sure. You're proposing that we institute a new policy regime, which likely would have impacts to the viability of such things.
You can reread my comments if you'd like. Right now, I'm just trying to get a simple economics answer to a simple economics question. You confused yourself by going off on some random tangent about some random claim that you made up and which I never made.
Why do you refuse to admit that the absolute is not as relevant as the relative? It's a basic principle of human behavior. (I've already admitted the absolute value doesn't change many times... but it doesn't really matter because that was never really related to my point.)
As charitably and nicely as possible, I'm afraid at this point I can only see you as being deliberately obtuse and will have to discontinue this conversation if you can't change course because I don't think we're getting anywhere.
I provided you with multiple economics resources to accomplish that for you. Enjoy.
Because I have a point about absolute that we can't get to, because you keep avoiding acknowledging basic economic facts.
Have you acknowledged that it either doesn't change or goes down? In fact, it almost always goes down. Just admit this painfully obviously true tiny little fact about economics, and we can move on.
Yes, there is an incentive for it to be lowered, as I've also already acknowledged. Of course that applies to actual McDonald's in the hypothetical scenario, but not to child porn, as there is not some Real Child Porn Inc. engaging in free market competition where it isn't subject to its products being illegal.
Whelp, if child porn is magically immune to economics, then we're probably not going to get very far. This is a very common failure mode for people; it happens a lot in drug prohibition discussions, too. (It does undercut your claim that we can analyze the outcome through first-order substitute goods/relative price analysis, though.)
In any event, I think we're pretty much done here. We've found the root of the disagreement. You think CP is immune to economics; I don't. There's probably not much more to say. I mean, I suppose I could say that I think I'm right. Lots of academic economists have very successfully applied traditional economic principles to a variety of black market goods, things that don't have a Black Market Goods Inc. engaging in free market competition. I find those works often persuasive.
It's definitely not "magically immune to economics". You just seem to have become so obsessed with the inexact economic analogy being debated that you forgot that we weren't actually even talking primarily about economics here but rather policy and sociology (which you can apply economic reasoning to via public/social choice theory, something I'm a fan of per my flair, but it's still not pure economics and thus naive applications of economic theory won't produce correct results).
The only reason child porn is seemingly "immune" to "economics" here is because contrary to the analogy (which is purely economic only analogically) about 100% legal fast food, the real extra "cost" of child porn above eroticized content of fictional children like lolicon is actually its illegality/extra taboo/difficulty to access, which no creator of child porn can simply alter or abolish in order to try to "compete" with substitutes (like a producer of normal goods might simply lower actual prices).
If it were simply a matter of actually lowering actual prices (which it's not because in reality both almost all lolicon and all real child porn are already distributed entirely for free), then you'd have a point here, but you don't because the "price" in this case is actually a legal risk that isn't subject to purely standard economic analysis. (Again, you can of course analyze the effects of policy on incentives/behavior using economic analysis, as public choice theorists do all the time, but you seem to want to ignore both the policy and the necessary academic lens here.)
And of course there are many standard economic analyses of illegal goods like drugs, illegal guns, etc., but unfortunately those fall apart in the case of child porn as it's a purely non-physical good. (As far as I can tell based on the example of CP, conventional markets based entirely in the sale of intellectual property, especially when as much producer and consumer anonymity as possible is necessary, can't function healthily/really exist at all without government willingness to enforce claims of exclusivity like copyrights, etc. as data is just too easy to replicate and thus allow 99% of consumers to avoid paying for it (unless you have something like cryptocurrency which technologically enforces non-replication, but that obviously doesn't work (at least so far) with purely sensory data as opposed to cryptographically-authenticated claims).)
They also especially fall apart here because we're comparing policies, not products.
Yes, it all undercuts your claim of this (or if you think you're at the second-order, then it undercuts that).
Let's go back to basic logic here:
Fictional, eroticized depictions of minors and actual child porn are both taboo and difficult to access to some degree, but (in the US at least) only the latter is illegal and it's also far more taboo and far more difficult to access.
Because they both are to a degree substitutes for each other, and because the cost/price in terms of difficulty/risk/etc. of acquisition of the fictional stuff is much lower, many people who would otherwise turn to child porn thus turn to the fictional stuff instead.
The more difficult to access/taboo the fictional stuff becomes, the less of a difference of cost/price there becomes between it and the real thing, thus lowering the relative cost/price of the real thing (or, inversely as I've been stating, raising its relative cost/price should the fictional stuff be less taboo and inaccessible). This reduces the incentive to prefer the fictional stuff over the real thing (lower price = higher quantity demanded), which people who strongly care about lowering consumption of the real thing should be worried about. (All of this except maybe the last clause of the last sentence is indisputably true, again based on basic logic.)
The part where the real thing changes its absolute cost/price (as it might do if we were actually talking about standard substitute goods offered by standard economic competitors, black market or not, which we're not (as they're two different categories of product affected by different policies (which is what we're actually comparing), not producers)) in response to any of this doesn't happen (so ironically the central point you've been hammering on this whole time actually supports mine), because that cost/price is imposed by policy that is specifically intended to curtail it. (This is not any "immunity" to economic analysis, just recognizing that comparative analyses of policies (which are inherently enforced monopolistically within their jurisdiction) and comparative analyses of standard economic agents in a free market do not work in the same way.)
So no, the root of our disagreement is not that I believe that anything is immune from economic analysis. The root of our disagreement is that you pushed an irrelevant rhetorical point so hard that you got lost in an inexact analogy and forgot (or perhaps never properly understood, can't say which) what kind of economic analysis (the economic analysis of policy, that is again public/social choice theory or something like it) is necessary to apply. Hopefully this clears things up.
Lots of academic economists have very successfully applied traditional economic principles to a variety of black market goods, things that don't have a Black Market Goods Inc. engaging in free market competition. I find those works often persuasive.
Costs to consumers are not identical to a dollar figure charged.
And apparently, all non-physical goods are now immune to economic analysis. Wow.
Yeah, costs that are attempted to be imposed by policy are not magically immune from affecting the cost borne by different parties in different ways when markets shift. It's this type of reasoning that makes people think, "Just put a price cap/floor on it! That'll fix everything by... fixing the price... imposing it by policy. Supply and demand won't matter anymore, and there will be no adjustment in the market!" It doesn't work like this, here or with any other black market good.
Then why have you again provided another attemped reason for why it's immune from economic analysis?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link