Question for economists - which medium is "better" for the economy?

[samstevens]

The free market, uninhibited by government regulation and control, provides the best natural way to produce the best products at the lowest prices to satisfy consumer demand.

Ahh, yes. In the ideal world that never existed and never will. What idealists fail to understand is that a civil society, to function at all, needs both freedom and restrictions on freedom.

 

The free market, uninhibited by government regulation, would be an abusive disaster for consumers. We’d be sick from polluted water, dying from toxic exposures, our meat would be consistently tainted, and we'd be unprotected at the hands of monopolies (which we kind of already are).

[glen_h]

The free market, uninhibited by government regulation and control, provides the best natural way to produce the best products at the lowest prices to satisfy consumer demand.

 

It would if externalities were included, but most often the are not.

 

Free market is supposed to include them, but our version of it most often leaves them off.

That is, things like the environmental cost of materials, or their disposal.

[AlanKlein]

That's the theory. It is a nice theory, seductive even. But and however the practice often falls short, and that's why regulation is often needed.

 

By the way, Milton Friedman's argument against regulation -- technical change will make a regulation unnecessary but the regulation won't go away -- is an empirical argument. Honest observation rejects it.

The problem with that theory is that not all costs are paid for by producers of products--air and water pollution impose real costs on society but were rarely born by the industries that produced the pollution. This leads to artificially low prices since consumers aren't paying the full costs of production, and classical economic theory tells you that people will buy more of something that is cheaper. Regulations will never be perfect but without them unscrupulous companies will impose a lot of costs on the rest of us.

Ahh, yes. In the ideal world that never existed and never will. What idealists fail to understand is that a civil society, to function at all, needs both freedom and restrictions on freedom.

 

The free market, uninhibited by government regulation, would be an abusive disaster for consumers. We’d be sick from polluted water, dying from toxic exposures, our meat would be consistently tainted, and we'd be unprotected at the hands of monopolies (which we kind of already are).

I did not want my statement to become political for fear I would get "dinged" by the moderators. The point I was making was about the photographic industry, not other markets.

 

Of course, there are rules and regulations, commercial laws, contracts, etc. The point I was making was that for the most part, the camera and film and digital photographic industry developed and grew mainly through free markets. Manufacturers, suppliers, and users throughout the world affected how in grew and matured and changed with little interference from the government.

 

I think it’s because we had so little government control of it, that it developed in the best possible way. Just look how quickly digital matured from its inception to today? That all came from very bright entrepreneurs and creators who advanced the engineering and marketing with little or no input from the government.

 

So, the best answer to the OP's question is which is better is that it is being decided by the free market, not by some government or private individual setting on the sidelines saying which is best. The market decided and will continue to decide.

[glen_h]

I did not want my statement to become political for fear I would get "dinged" by the moderators. The point I was making was about the photographic industry, not other markets.

 

(snip)

 

So, the best answer to the OP's question is which is better is that it is being decided by the free market, not by some government or private individual setting on the sidelines saying which is best. The market decided and will continue to decide.

 

There is government regulation on disposal of some chemicals.

 

Also, the well known restriction against Kodak selling film with processing included.

 

Sometimes you need government regulation to allow free market to work.

[eugen_mezei]

Jochen, it is true for any historical debate, but specially when talking about the GDR it is a must to specify the exact time period you are referring to. The GDR of the 50s is not the same as that of the 70s and also different from the 80s.

In the 50s and 60s the cameras had a paper attached that forbid the buyer to export the camera. Following your reasoning with the box of film the price was subsitized. This was totally different in the 70-80s, but I very much doubt it, that a M42 Praktica with 50 mm, even if it was the Pancolar, did cost 500-750 DM. Could be your memory plays tricks on you and you are thinking about 500 East German Mark.

It happens that I know "Vergrößern" but can not remember to have read about the silver problem, especially not about that being state property. It would be untipical for communist regimes, they usually had smarter formulations in laws. Like you had to sell the silver to state operated recycling plants. They tried to maintain the appearance of respect for the property of the citizen. That the price was fixed and made by them is true.

Who did forbid you to export the box of film/paper?

[eugen_mezei]

 

Also, the well known restriction against Kodak selling film with processing included.

 

That is a subject I would like to know more. Would you elaborate?

I remember you could in some places (in western Europe) buy film with processing included and without. 90s-ealry2000s. And it was not only Kodak but also Fuji and Agfa.

[Karim Ghantous]

Sometimes you need government regulation to allow free market to work.

Everyone agrees with this. Even libertarians.

 

What most people object to is government assuming too much influence in the market. Imagine the government saying, "Okay, from now on, no more cameras. Your phones are good enough. Nobody needs a 400mm lens. And you aren't allowed to buy a new phone more than five times per decade. It's for the planet. Isn't that the most important thing?"

 

IMHO the government overstepped its bounds by making it illegal to use lead in lens elements. YMMV.

[eugen_mezei]

 

However, I see the environmental impact of film versus digital as a much more imperative argument than simplistic monetary considerations. An argument that should, and needs to, spread to all economic models. The planet can no longer support mankind's profligate waste of its material and energy resources. We have to stop making 'stuff' to simply throw away or replace after a few months use. Otherwise we'll have nothing left to make 'stuff' with!

 

In my lifteime I survived at least 5 catastrophes the enviromentalists promised we all would die from. In the 80s acid rain dissolved me. It also killed the forests, I have to go out tomorrow and look for a tree.. wait, I see hundreds of thousands of acres of forest.

Also I survived at least 3 big crisis of "in 10 years we will not have anymore of it". Hmm... I see we still have plenty of raw materials.

 

Please name one demonstrably objective parameter where.

 

Colors (show me the colors of Astia), ease of use, direct access with your own senses.

[eugen_mezei]

Everyone agrees with this. Even libertarians.

 

What most people object to is government assuming too much influence in the market. Imagine the government saying, "Okay, from now on, no more cameras. Your phones are good enough. Nobody needs a 400mm lens. And you aren't allowed to buy a new phone more than five times per decade. It's for the planet. Isn't that the most important thing?"

 

IMHO the government overstepped its bounds by making it illegal to use lead in lens elements. YMMV.

 

The problem is, that you dont have to imagine that, we are already in that situation.

It becomes infuriating, when these measures are based not on facts (scientific, statistical, whatever) but on populism. Populism: lead = bad. Reality: lead in glass = you dont lick it like an ice cone and even if, it will still be no harm to anybody or anything.

[glen_h]

(After I wrote: "Also, the well known restriction against Kodak selling film with processing included.")

 

That is a subject I would like to know more. Would you elaborate?

I remember you could in some places (in western Europe) buy film with processing included and without. 90s-ealry2000s. And it was not only Kodak but also Fuji and Agfa.

 

It was before my time, in 1954, and as well as I know, US only.

 

http://www.masonlec.org/site/rte_uploads/files/WrightBaye_Case_Study_kodak_case.pdf

 

I do remember my dad buying gray market (imported from Europe) Kodachrome with

processing included, about 1969. Though there weren't many labs doing Kodachrome,

more labs doing Kodacolor and Ektachrome.

 

In 1976, for my last week of high school, I bought a (recently) outdated roll of Anscochrome 200,

with processing included, for half price. That way, the processing was also half price!

 

This is one if my classes, with a Canon VI and a flashcube on an Agfalux C:

 

[AlanKlein]

There is government regulation on disposal of some chemicals.

 

Also, the well known restriction against Kodak selling film with processing included.

 

Sometimes you need government regulation to allow free market to work.

I agree. Nothing's perfect. After all, we have patents and copyrights, required in the American constitution, that affect the growth of any industry. We also need laws to create fair and even playing fields among the states, courts to protect companies from theft and fraud, etc.

 

But for the photographic industry, I think that it developed more organically because of free market influences in spite of those rules and regulations compared to many other industries. Just look how the cellphone camera has affected the regular camera industry? It's pushed traditional camera manufacturers to compete better with more advanced cameras or be left behind. We consumers have reaped the rewards of those changes with terrific photography and video unimagined twenty years ago.

[Karim Ghantous]

In 1976, for my last week of high school, I bought a (recently) outdated roll of Anscochrome 200,

with processing included, for half price. That way, the processing was also half price!

 

This is one if my classes, with a Canon VI and a flashcube on an Agfalux C:

I wish that I were this proactive back in my high school years (1988 onwards). Documenting our environments these days is commonplace. But back then, not so much. All I needed was a Disc camera and I would have been my school's only PJ. Oh,well.

[glen_h]

I wish that I were this proactive back in my high school years (1988 onwards). Documenting our environments these days is commonplace. But back then, not so much. All I needed was a Disc camera and I would have been my school's only PJ. Oh,well.

 

I was only at that school two years, and decided not to buy a yearbook.

 

But then at the end of the year, wanted something to remember people with.

 

In 7th and 8th grade, I did yearbook photography, and maybe a hundred

black and white negatives from that. But in high school, yearbook was

an actual class.

[glen_h]

OK, as for the actual economy, film processing had an interesting economic consideration.

 

You would drop off your film somewhere, often at a store, and then had to come

back later to pick up the results. It is a guaranteed second visit to the store.

 

Stores, such as grocers and others, could offer processing at a low price,

knowing that they would sell you more on your return.

 

After the shift to digital, many of those stores offered digital prints,

upload to the web site, order prints, and later pick them up.

Many stores that did that, don't do it anymore.

 

It seems, then, that in terms of store economy, that wasn't

as good as film processing. And note that what is good

for "the economy" isn't always best for individuals.

 

And now with computers, and portable computing devices, we don't

need to print out as many prints, as we view them instead on the screen.

 

So we shift away from photofinishing services, and toward

portable computing devices. And I suspect that we spend much

more on the latter, than we ever did on the former.

 

And, regarding Joe's comment, I suspect that the environmental

cost of portable computing devices is higher than that of film

and photofinishing.

[samstevens]

I see hundreds of thousands of acres of forest.

You’re in good company. Donald Trump, the orange-haired idiot, upon seeing snow, declared that Earth’s temperatures couldn’t be rising. If a flood, a fire, a hurricane, or a tornado doesn’t kill us, ignorance just might.

[frans_waterlander]

Donald Trump, the orange-haired idiot

And... we're back to TDS! BTW, who's "better for the economy" (the theme of this thread in case you forgot), Trump or Biden?

Edited July 23, 2022 by frans_waterlander

[samstevens]

'twas brillig and the slithy toves ...

 

[frans_waterlander]

[ATTACH=full]1434263[/ATTACH]

Don't answer the question, please!

[glen_h]

And... we're back to TDS! BTW, who's "better for the economy" (the theme of this thread in case you forgot), Trump or Biden?

 

I won't answer the actual question, except to ask: in the short term or long term?

 

And beside that, because of delays in the effects of policies on the economy

and that presidents get judged by what happens while they are president,

much of the result is actually from the previous president.

 

Though it seem usual to credit, and blame, presidents for what happens

during their term.

[AlanKlein]

OK, as for the actual economy, film processing had an interesting economic consideration.

 

You would drop off your film somewhere, often at a store, and then had to come

back later to pick up the results. It is a guaranteed second visit to the store.

 

Stores, such as grocers and others, could offer processing at a low price,

knowing that they would sell you more on your return.

 

After the shift to digital, many of those stores offered digital prints,

upload to the web site, order prints, and later pick them up.

Many stores that did that, don't do it anymore.

 

It seems, then, that in terms of store economy, that wasn't

as good as film processing. And note that what is good

for "the economy" isn't always best for individuals.

 

And now with computers, and portable computing devices, we don't

need to print out as many prints, as we view them instead on the screen.

 

So we shift away from photofinishing services, and toward

portable computing devices. And I suspect that we spend much

more on the latter, than we ever did on the former.

 

And, regarding Joe's comment, I suspect that the environmental

cost of portable computing devices is higher than that of film

and photofinishing.

Free markets are very democratic. People vote with their money. As an individual who will miss Velvia 50 when it ends soon, the economy decided it wasn't worth it. If there were enough buyers willing to spend money on it, I'm sure Fuji would continue it. All things end eventually. Life is funny that way.

[frans_waterlander]

Free markets are very democratic.

Alan, some words trigger bad reactions in liberals, like: free markets, profits, 2nd Amendment, etc.

[Allen Herbert]

"People vote with their money" Alan.

 

Indeed.

 

I suppose what makes them the most money. I suppose that's really what humanity is about--the coin in their pockets.

 

[Karim Ghantous]

"People vote with their money" Alan.

 

Indeed.

 

I suppose what makes them the most money. I suppose that's really what humanity is about--the coin in their pockets.

 

[ATTACH=full]1434286[/ATTACH]

No. What Alan Klein meant was that people vote on what they want to spend their money on. When it comes to actually making money, a lot of people would vote for a more satisfying job, even if it meant making less money. Do you think that photography is making me rich? For some, it is. For me, it isn't, and yet I wouldn't do anything else.

 

And BTW, discussion of politics is not encouraged on this website. Please refrain.

[AlanKlein]

"People vote with their money" Alan.

 

Indeed.

 

I suppose what makes them the most money. I suppose that's really what humanity is about--the coin in their pockets.

 

[ATTACH=full]1434286[/ATTACH]

Maybe it would have been clearer if I said consumers vote with their money. So getting back to the topic, when photographers stopped buying film products, it almost died out. No manufacturer or person is going to spend their investment money and savings to invest in a new film camera that no one or few are willing to vote for by spending their money to purchase. Meanwhile, they were willing to spend their money on digital so the digital market increased phenomenally.

 

That's the democracy of the free market. If the government set limits or demands or regulated it, who knows what we would be shooting today?

[samstevens]

Maybe it would have been clearer if I said consumers vote with their money. So getting back to the topic, when photographers stopped buying film products, it almost died out. No manufacturer or person is going to spend their investment money and savings to invest in a new film camera that no one or few are willing to vote for by spending their money to purchase. Meanwhile, they were willing to spend their money on digital so the digital market increased phenomenally.

 

That's the democracy of the free market. If the government set limits or demands or regulated it, who knows what we would be shooting today?

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. Companies also lead markets, and consumers buy what companies create, what they put their research and development dollars into. They saw big bucks in the ease of use of digital and phone cams and, to some extent, their latest creations helped drive film to where it is today.

 

Consumers often falsely think they’re in charge but, in fact, they’re working within a narrower and narrower range of choices.

 

The “free” market has never been free of certain qualities like greed, investor profit motive, and the bottom line. Yes, that’s led to some great innovation and some robust economies (especially among certain “classes” of people). It’s also led to abuses.

 

Regardless, however, the “free market” shouldn’t be compared to a democracy and voting. That’s not how it’s envisioned or how it works.