Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

Started by garbon, October 02, 2011, 04:31:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

garbon

Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
oh  :lol:

Well, my point was you can't legislate taste, but you can ensure proper labeling.

I don't think there is anything improper about my California champagne. :)
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 02:48:54 PM
I don't think there is anything improper about my California champagne. :)

Nothing improper; it's just a contradiction in terms.   ;)
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Martinus

Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 10, 2011, 11:59:35 AM
@garbon: so where's the harm in me branding my drink "Coca Cola" if the consumer can't tell the difference in taste?

The name is legally owned via trademark and I don't think Coca Cola has ever been used to describe everything in its class (although I'm aware of the coke bit).  On the other hand - champagne and feta have been and in many places continue to be used to describe everything in their particular class. It seems artificial to restrict those classes down to singular items that are produced by a certain group of individuals in a certain place, who aren't even engaged in a common enterprise.

That's not an argument. The "legal ownership" of Coca Cola is purely a legal construct, a convention (and a pretty new one, if you compare it to the history of law). Likewise, geographical designation is legally awarded and a part of the same convention.

garbon

Quote from: Martinus on October 10, 2011, 03:16:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 10, 2011, 11:59:35 AM
@garbon: so where's the harm in me branding my drink "Coca Cola" if the consumer can't tell the difference in taste?

The name is legally owned via trademark and I don't think Coca Cola has ever been used to describe everything in its class (although I'm aware of the coke bit).  On the other hand - champagne and feta have been and in many places continue to be used to describe everything in their particular class. It seems artificial to restrict those classes down to singular items that are produced by a certain group of individuals in a certain place, who aren't even engaged in a common enterprise.

That's not an argument. The "legal ownership" of Coca Cola is purely a legal construct, a convention (and a pretty new one, if you compare it to the history of law). Likewise, geographical designation is legally awarded and a part of the same convention.

I'm not going to take lessons from you on what's an argument. Stop wasting my time.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Ideologue

Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 02:22:05 PM
QuoteIn October 2008 the Association of Lebanese Industrialists petitioned to the Lebanese ministry of Economy to request protected status from the European Commission for hummus as a uniquely Lebanese food, similar to the Protected Geographical Status rights held over regional food items by various European Union countries. Fadi Abboud (president of the Lebanese Industrialists Association), stated that "Israelis have usurped several Lebanese and oriental products". According to Abboud, Lebanon exported the first hummus dish in 1959. As a response, food critic Janna Gur wrote: "The success of certain brands of Israeli hummus abroad may have been what brought about Abboud's anger", leading him to claim that Israel has been "stealing" their country's national dishes, like hummus, falafel, tabbouleh and baba ghanouj. In response, Shooky Galili, an Israeli journalist specialising in food who writes a blog dedicated to hummus, said that "trying to make a copyright claim over hummus is like claiming for the rights to bread or wine. [...] Hummus is a centuries old Arab dish—nobody owns it, it belongs to the region."  As of late 2009, the Lebanese Industrialists Association was still "preparing documents and proof" to support its claim.

The hummus I eat is made in the U.S. and it's fine.  Probably better.
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

Zoupa

Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 03:19:22 PM
The hummus I eat is made in the U.S. and it's fine.  Probably better.

Probably not better, no.


Ideologue

Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 03:30:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 03:19:22 PM
The hummus I eat is made in the U.S. and it's fine.  Probably better.

Probably not better, no.

Long way to America from Lebanon.  At the least it's cheaper.
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

dps

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2011, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 11:58:21 AM
Don't most edible products tell where they are made? 

Country of origin only, and then only on the back label


Wines are an exception, though.  Even without EU-style naming regulations, they usually tell you more than just country of origin.

And I'd hope that if something is labelled as a California champaign, people can figure out that it's not from Champagne.

garbon

Quote from: dps on October 10, 2011, 03:48:32 PM
Wines are an exception, though.  Even without EU-style naming regulations, they usually tell you more than just country of origin.

And I'd hope that if something is labelled as a California champaign, people can figure out that it's not from Champagne.

Yep. Even grocery stores separate out the country of origin.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

chipwich

Quote from: Martinus on October 10, 2011, 03:16:03 PM
That's not an argument. The "legal ownership" of Coca Cola is purely a legal construct, a convention (and a pretty new one, if you compare it to the history of law). Likewise, geographical designation is legally awarded and a part of the same convention.

Trademarks and copyrights are awarded on the grounds that they were created by the owners (or whoever buys or inherits that mark) Eastern French winegrowers did not invent the idea of being from Champagne.

Zoupa


Neil

Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
oh  :lol:

Well, my point was you can't legislate taste, but you can ensure proper labeling.
Yeah, but what the EU is doing isn't really proper labeling.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Neil

Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 06:07:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2011, 03:34:03 PM
Probably identical.

Produce grown in different locations taste different.  :)
So does produce grown in the same location.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

crazy canuck

Quote from: dps on October 10, 2011, 03:48:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2011, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2011, 11:58:21 AM
Don't most edible products tell where they are made? 

Country of origin only, and then only on the back label


Wines are an exception, though.  Even without EU-style naming regulations, they usually tell you more than just country of origin.

And I'd hope that if something is labelled as a California champaign, people can figure out that it's not from Champagne.

I dont understand the Garbon argument of wanting names to be meaningless.  Why make the consumer have to search a label to determine if they are drinking real champagne or some Californian sparkling wine pretending to be Champagne?