Raids. "And then they came for me, but by then no one was left to speak up."

Quote from paperboy05 : People should live with nothing, be naked, and eat the scrap leftovers of other animals liberal /thread

People do/say something I don't I agree with and I go on the internet to argue about it, even though I cannot change their beliefs or the laws they have created or are enforcing.

podiumite

/forum

Quote from 124nic8 : You say potato.... You'd have a much more difficult time playing a guitar you don't own or was confiscated.

So it isn't the reward of purchasing as you initially said. I think that supports your original comment was not just vague but incorrect.

Quote : If people see those who purchased illegal products being punished, they will likely not purchase them.

Why should something be illegal if it was made prior to any bans the material? You seem more interested in making examples of people as opposed to actually doing something that protects the environment.

Quote : That's strange, cause when the price of gas goes up, I drive less and therefore demand less gas. But if you prefer consumption, that's fine, cause it's reduced consumption that will save the rainforest.

Consumption can also be controlled by other methods that don't involve punishing companies and individuals for breaking foreign laws that should have no weight or force in the US.

In fact, you have not shown that this would do anything to decrease consumption either. If a particular wood has a sonic characteristic that doesn't have a substitute, an increase in price will not necessarily decrease consumption. These types of instruments are sold to connoisseurs which leads to a low price elasticity of demand.

Quote from darkfrog : Their similar in that they are both straw man fallacies.

But nic already knew that.

Quote from darkfrog : So it isn't the reward of purchasing as you initially said. I think that supports your original comment was not just vague but incorrect.

No, ownership and playing are the rewards of purchasing.

Quote : Why should something be illegal if it was made prior to any bans the material? You seem more interested in making examples of people as opposed to actually doing something that protects the environment.

Why do you assume that making examples of people will not help protect the environment?

Quote : Consumption can also be controlled by other methods that don't involve punishing companies and individuals for breaking foreign laws that should have no weight or force in the US.

So?

Quote : In fact, you have not shown that this would do anything to decrease consumption either. If a particular wood has a sonic characteristic that doesn't have a substitute, an increase in price will not necessarily decrease consumption. These types of instruments are sold to connoisseurs which leads to a low price elasticity of demand.

Speculation. Increased price almost always motivates creation/use of substitutes.

Quote from 124nic8 : No, ownership and playing are the rewards of purchasing.

Fine

Quote : Why do you assume that making examples of people will not help protect the environment?

Because you're not making examples of people when the law is ex post facto. It's petty and vindictive and is against the US Constitution.

Quote : So?

So you're okay enforcing the laws of other countries in the US?

Quote : Speculation. Increased price almost always motivates creation/use of substitutes.

I'm telling you you haven't supported your claim and you are saying that's speculation? You aren't making much sense but then again you appear to be arguing from an emotional standpoint and not paying much attention to reason.

Quote from darkfrog : Fine Because you're not making examples of people when the law is ex post facto. It's petty and vindictive and is against the US Constitution.

You're claiming it won't influence future behavior?

Take it up with the SCOTUS then.

Quote : So you're okay enforcing the laws of other countries in the US?

Don't know that it's not required by trade treaties.

Quote : I'm telling you you haven't supported your claim and you are saying that's speculation? You aren't making much sense but then again you appear to be arguing from an emotional standpoint and not paying much attention to reason.

It is you who is not using reason. You're speculating that the demand for this wood is price inelastic when increased price almost always reduces demand/consumption.

Quote from 124nic8 : You're claiming it won't influence future behavior? Take it up with the SCOTUS then.

I'm not saying it won't prevent others from buying articles made with that wood but most would probably follow the new law anyway. What I'm not sure you're understanding is that it doesn't really help to punish people for doing something that was legal when they did it. I think the SCOTUS would support me on that.

Quote : Don't know that it's not required by trade treaties.

Yet you don't seem to care if they aren't.

Quote : It is you who is not using reason. You're speculating that the demand for this wood is price inelastic when increased price almost always reduces demand/consumption.

I'm not speculating, I'm telling you the belief of many musicians and instrument makers. You have not shown that exotic woods that instruments maker use are elastic when the reason they use exotic woods over more easily obtainable ones are due to inherent properties of the wood, i.e. there are no substitutes.

Quote from darkfrog : I'm not saying it won't prevent others from buying articles made with that wood but most would probably follow the new law anyway. What I'm not sure you're understanding is that it doesn't really help to punish people for doing something that was legal when they did it. I think the SCOTUS would support me on that.

I, and the powers that be, disagree that it doesn't really help.

Quote : Yet you don't seem to care if they aren't.

I'm assuming they're not stupid and have a rational basis to believe those actions are justified.

Quote : I'm not speculating, I'm telling you the belief of many musicians and instrument makers. You have not shown that exotic woods that instruments maker use are elastic when the reason they use exotic woods over more easily obtainable ones are due to inherent properties of the wood, i.e. there are no substitutes.

And you haven't shown your assertion that it is price inelastic.

Would you at least agree that having no substitute is the rare case?

Quote from 124nic8 : I, and the powers that be, disagree that it doesn't really help.

How would you know what the PTB think? So far it hasn't been made illegal to own one of these instruments. The problem comes from proving the age of the instrument and filling out paperwork correctly.

Quote : I'm assuming they're not stupid and have a rational basis to believe those actions are justified.

You are welcome to believe that bureaucrats actually aren't stupid and have a rational basis and the public's best interest in mind and not one of self-interest, but I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think there is plenty of precedent to back me up as well based many other instances of abuse of seizure laws. Don't forget, it's been two years and still no charges have been filed on the Madagascar wood and it appears this latest seizure was done without the consent or support of India.

Gibson's press release says that the wood seized was FSC controlled, there is no evidence they attempted to bypass any regulations by any country, let alone the US.

Quote : And you haven't shown your assertion that it is price inelastic.

At least I gave a rational basis for believing that certain tonewoods are price inelastic based on my knowledge of instrument makers, musicians and the science of tonewoods. Also the quote from the WSJ article supports my POV, "Surprisingly, musicians, who represent some of the most savvy, ecologically minded people around, are resistant to anything about changing the tone of their guitars,"

Quote : Would you at least agree that having no substitute is the rare case?

For many things I would certainly agree with that. However, even a google search [google.com] will show the complexity involved in choosing and matching various woods.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033506...rkers.html

Quote from 124nic8 : Added bureaucracy increases the price and therefore reduces demand.

. Have you ever taken an economics course? A simple change in price will not alter the demand curve, it will only change consumption level, You economic analyses are so flawed it is becoming hard to read them!

Quote from theflintseeker : . Have you ever taken an economics course? A simple change in price will not alter the demand curve, it will only change consumption level, You economic analyses are so flawed it is becoming hard to read them!

I didn't say curve I said demand. Its apparent you're having trouble reading.

When price goes up people demand less cause they switch to other supplies.

Of course bureaucracy is another way to slow consumption. Which is the goal.

Quote from 124nic8 : I didn't say curve I said demand. Its apparent you're having trouble reading. When price goes up people demand less cause they switch to other supplies. Of course bureaucracy is another way to slow consumption. Which is the goal.

Demand? Demand what? It's a demand curve; it takes prices and outputs quantity.

The demand curve didn't change, they just went to a different place on the curve. There has been no "shock to demand"; only a "shock to supply". What you are bungling is the essence of identification problems in demand analysis. Fail.

Bureaucracy only served to raise the price. See above.

Quote from theflintseeker : Demand? Demand what? It's a demand curve; it takes prices and outputs quantity. The demand curve didn't change, they just went to a different place on the curve. There has been no "shock to demand"; only a "shock to supply". What you are bungling is the essence of identification problems in demand analysis. Fail. Bureaucracy only served to raise the price. See above.

It's apparent that your ideology interferes with your perception of the truth.

Bureaucracy CAN completely shut off supply at any price.

Plus, when the price goes up, people do switch to substitutes which is essentially reduces demand.

When I say demand, that is shorthand for quantity demanded: [about.com]

Quote : A shortage is simply the flip-side of a surplus. It is a situation where, at the current price, quantity demanded exceeds quantity supplied.

I did not refer to a demand curve.