Re: [tlug] Open-source Japan

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Edward Middleton writes:

 > Because when the markets screw the pouch[1] we all end up in the ...

That's pretty ungrateful of you; without markets you'd be scratching
dirt for nuts and berries.  Not to mention that the biggest crises of
the last century were all due to *government* snafus (huge monetary
*contraction* in 1929-1932, a regulatory regime that protects
borrowers against loss while allowing banks to escape via bankruptcy
in the S&L crises in the US and Japan, Congress pushing hard to get
industry to lend to subprime borrowers in the current mess).  It's not
clear that *any* of them would have happened if the market had been
left to its own devices.

 > Why is it unreasonable to demand higher standards (i.e. requiring
 > adequate honest disclosure) in the markets then we would expect of
 > society in general?  The consequences of failure are far greater.

Only by comparison with a rather consistent history of success, which
our politician and editors should have the grace to envy rather than
deplore.

Note that somewhere along the line the question of the morals of the
demanders got lost.  Namely, *who pays*?  My beef is with people who
expect vendors to supply an evalution that satisfies the *customer's*
criteria accurately, along with the vendor's advertised product, at no
cost to themselves.  Not with people who want to set up oversight and
pay for it themselves (both directly through payment for the watchdog,
and indirectly by simply boycotting products that don't come up to
snuff, rather than forcing everybody to accept excessively high
quality ... which is usually a protectionist measure, cf the price of
beer in Germany and rice in Japan).

When phrased as "why shouldn't we demand 'honest adequate
disclosure'", of course nobody can object to that.  The problem is
that that phrasing is itself dishonest.  There are some questions that
shouldn't be asked.  I see no particular reason not to lie in
response, rather than giving an honest refusal to answer that
indicates I'm uncomfortable with answering.

And there are answers that come in varying degrees of detail -- who
decides what's adequate?  If you're the average joe, you really don't
much care what's in that delicious-looking bowl.  If you've got a food
allergy, though, you have a life-and-death interest in *exact*
contents.  It is *not* obvious that the vendor (ie, after cost pass-
through, the average customer) should bear the cost of detailed
labeling.  It's quite plausible that the person with allergies should
be asked to seek out (higher-priced) vendors who do provide that
information.

 > To believe higher standards would be achieved with little or no
 > oversight seems to be demonstratively flawed.

Curt gave the example of the New York Stock Exchange.  I haven't
noticed any great outcry for "oversight" of purity of materials in the
semiconductor market.  Etc.  Nor is it clear that higher standards
*can* be achieved, eg, in eBay or the used car market.  Let alone the
market for illegal drugs.  Or water purifiers and consumer credit
(keikaku-teki ni riyou shimashou! -- like somebody capable of planning
a birthday party would need to borrow at 55% annually, ever...) in
this country.

And then there's the oversight that is performed by the Japanese
ministries with respect to domestic producers.  Quis custodiat ipsos
custodes, eh?  To believe that greater oversight can be achieved with
little or no cost seems to be demonstratively flawed....