Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War) (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>]

Forwarded message:

> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 20:22:44 -0700
> From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
> Subject: Re: Thoughtcrime   (Re: My War)

> Your economics education must have some gaps. Look into "price elasticity."
> Look also at the markets for illegal drugs: despite severe "taxation" (in
> the form of price increases of some drugs, increased prison terms, etc.),
> some markets have increased even as prices have increased.

Clearly this whole discussion can be broken down into a cusp shaped gap.
Too much regulation will cause the market worth to soar hence driving a
large increase in at least attempted revenue spent on the commodity. Whereas
a complete lack of regulation will saturate the market hence driving
suppliers and distributors out of the market, leaving a few megaliths.
Somewhere in the middle is a point where there is actualy a minimum of
the events you are trying to eliminate.

> With drugs, knocking out distributors has in many cases increased the
> selling price of the drug, making it actually more lucrative for street
> dealers to enter the market.

Actualy what it does is increase the perception of danger and difficulty in
the mind of the user and low-level dealer. The actual cycle is much more
complicated than Tim is alluding to here. First there is the total supply of
raw material, processing, and distribution. This sets a hard baseline limit
on the total available drug. Then we have a certain fluctuating percentage
of the population who use it. If we study the typical 'addict cycle' for
different drugs and users we see a multiplicity of cycles and patterns of
behaviour (eg most users who don't od kick the habit after a period of
time). Then we have the perception of those users on the availability of the
drug. There is also the percentage of tax that a society can support at a
given standard of living to support police activity specificaly for drug
control. The image that John and Jane Doe have on the impact of drugs on
their lives. And on and on... 

> This is not at all clear. If the crackdown on child porn, or porn in
> general, causes the street price to rise to $10 a picture, say, then many
> folks not producing child porn now might be tempted to get into the market.

Any many who had thought about it would decline because of the increased
chance of getting caught.

Specificaly how are you justifying the assumption that the net effect would
be to increase the total available distributors? It seems to me that such
an arguments natural extension would be that it would increase the net
number of movie makers not distributors. Consider, the number of distributors
is reduced by a very public campaign. Obviously two things come from this.
First is the actual reduction of available material and the perception that
distribution is a very dangerous game. So what does our enterprising
pedophile do? He buys himself a camera and proceeds to make his own for him
and his buddies. Hell, if he gets too worried he can start killing the kids
so they can't squeel.


   _______________________________________________________________________
  |                                                                       |
  |            Speak the truth, but leave immediately after.              |
  |                                                                       |
  |                                     Slovenian Proverb                 |
  |                                                                       |
  |     Jim Choate                                 ravage@ssz.com         |
  |     The Armadillo Group                        www.ssz.com            |
  |     Austin, Texas, USA                         512-451-7087           |
  |_______________________________________________________________________|