The myth of the free market?

[Niflmir]

So this is an idea that struck me while in a conversation with my brother. It is not my intention to challenge the idea that the free market is the ideal market, I simply want to point out a simple fact:

There are no free markets in Canada.

That I am aware of at least. What I mean by a free market is a market which is free from control on the supply. The supply in a free market is allowed to grow to meet the demand so long as there is finance for it. A monopoly can never be considered a free market since they completely control the price and the supply and will always attempt to maximize profits, not having information about any sense of social utility in producing more at a loss of profit.

That then is all you need to see the truth: patent laws create de facto monopolies in the technology industry, copyright laws do the same in the entertainment industry and trademarks together with the placebo effect eliminate free markets elsewhere. We have created an economy where every product is distinguishable and laws that ensure there is only ever one supplier. If I want Tylenol, I have to buy it from Bayer, I could get generic brand acetaminophen but Tylenol is distinguished in my mind via the brand name and the packaging. Acetaminophen and Tylenol are two different things. If my kids want a "Finding Nemo" DVD, I think they will be a tiny bit annoyed if I bring them back "Ernest Goes to Camp," DVD's are individual products.

The very aim of patent and copyright law is to give corporations monopolies so that they can exploit control over their product to maximize their profit for a period of time and gain a fair return on their investment. The aim is to destroy the free market. The aim of trademark laws are similar, advertisements create a distinguished product. People don't feel as good eating "Generic-o's" as they do eating "Cheerios," they are different goods.

The idea of the free market economy is that it forces corporations to compete to produce the same product. The company that produces the best version at the lowest price will be the most successful. When you go out to buy a dvd player, they all look different and you start looking at prices and brand names. Certain brand names make you feel bad, certain prices make you feel bad, in the end you can never compare two equal products: their features are too distinguished.

Apples would be an excellent model of a free market. What do I care about the company that produced the apple, I just want a royal gala or a McIntosh. Anyone can grow those. Of course, I generally don't get to choose between two different producers versions of the apple, the store does that for me. Before that though, the government has subsidized the farmers to artificially reduce the cost of the agricultural product, so no free market there either.

Our patent, copyright, trademark, breeder and grower laws all create distinguished products with single producers. These producers do not need to compete in a free market so long as their products are distinguished or alone in the market. This happens for every product you can buy from a company in Canada. So, we do not live in a free market economy.

 

[Liberalman]

Free market?

I thought a monopoly was one company that was protected by the government so there would be no competition.

When one company takes over the other company where there is no competition they are free to charge what ever they want until another company is formed to compete with them then the price comes down.

There is hardly any manufacturing job in Canada because our government allowed foreign competition that dumped their good onto our markets so that the population can buy cheaply made goods.

Our government will lose lots of money because they fell asleep at the switch and they are seeing less money in taxes being paid to them.

Canada is on the verge of being a third world country and our government does not care.

Only Canadians can stop this erosion by purchasing Canadian made goods, which would create more industries which in turn creates jobs and the money that is spent stays in Canada instead of going to foreign countries.

The Americans have complained for years that the orient is not buying their products but in reality the people of those countries protect their economies by not buying foreign made goods.

This global economy myth or model is not working and it is time to put it to rest.

You can say that Canada is one great big family where you have to look after your own first.

 

[Toro]

In all due respect, Liberalman, what you're saying is ridiculous. Canada has one of the strongest economies in the world. And as for jobs

In this study, we assemble a wide variety of data sets in an attempt to produce a set of stylized facts regarding offshoring and the evolution of Canadian employment in recent years. Our main finding is that, in almost all of the data sets used, there is, so far, little evidence of a correlation between offshoring, however defined, and the evolution of employment and layoff rates. While our analyses are fairly simple, they all suggest that if foreign outsourcing has had an impact on Canadian employment and worker displacement so far, this impact is likely to be modest and thus, unlikely to be detected either with industry-level or occupation-level data.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE2007300.htm

N

What you are obviously discussing is not a "free market" issue. What you are discussing is an intellectual property issue.

In a free market, it is absolutely imperative that that an economy has strong laws and an impartial judiciary. Without those two aspects, it doesn't matter how free the market, you are going to lag, stagnate or decline.

One of the laws that is critical to the functioning of a market is property. If there is no respect for property laws, investment will stagnate and decline. Why would you invest if you think your savings will be stolen?

"Property" includes not only physical property but also intellectual property. After all, physical property is merely the physical embodiment of an idea. As the economy moves away from a manufacturing economy to an intellectual one, it becomes even more imperative that intellectual property is protected.

The question then becomes, what is the appropriate amount of protection? That is a fair question, and is open to debate. But to tear down patent laws means to tear down the future of the economy.

 

[Andem]

If I want Tylenol, I have to buy it from Bayer, I could get generic brand acetaminophen but Tylenol is distinguished in my mind via the brand name and the packaging. Acetaminophen and Tylenol are two different things.

How is brand name Acetaminophen (Tylenol) different from another brand of Acetaminophen? Likewise, what's the difference between Ventolin (tradename) and Salbutamol?

If my kids want a "Finding Nemo" DVD, I think they will be a tiny bit annoyed if I bring them back "Ernest Goes to Camp," DVD's are individual products.

Wouldn't a better comparison be whether to buy Finding Nemo instead of Shark Tale? They are creative peices of work and both different; they have similar themes but any studio can create a animated feature about fish and sealife.

Overall I would echo Toro's reponse.

 

[Northboy]

No such thing as a "Free Market" economy,

What we have is currency hegemony, and it serves our purpose...

 

[Zzarchov]

"free market" is a fairy tale by definition. Its like when you say "Equality" or "Justice", all you can have is near enough that most people are happy.

A completely free market quickly devolves into monopolies, unless you arbitrarily force companies to break up, it is always more beneficial for them to co-operate and merge (for them, not for you).

 

[damngrumpy]

Much of what you say is true except when it comes to the apples. The government does not subsidize the cost of apples and under the trade law, horticulture is competing with the Europeans and even the Americans, who do subsidize the commodity. Canadian farmers have seen the lowest prices ever in the last few years, as our government chose to abandoned the horticultural sector, now, grains and oil seeds thats a different matter.
The only assistance apple growers have received is in the form of replant which is on a cost sharing basis, and this federal government has provided some assistance for the 2004 crop disaster when the good ole USA dumped apples into this market at prices below their own cost of production. That payment by the way amounts to very little in BC something like 2.3% of new sales which wouldn't pay the bill for diesel in many cases. Apple growers are not subsidized for the cost of production that ended with NAFTA.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

great thread.....
I can tell you for sure generic drugs are NEVER as good as the originals.
2 companies in Canada Apo and Novo make generic drugs.
I've had this discussion with pharmacists a thousand times and they stand by the claim that the drug is the same whoever makes it.
But with my blood pressure pills i can actually tell.
Apo brand 50 mg atenol controls my blood pressure perfectly , steadily.
Novo brand same quantity and my heart is raising, i feel my heart pumping and my blood pressure is high.
When I said this to the pharmacist he told me about some delivery system in the drug which i would adjust to..it never happened and the next month i went back to Apo brand and all was fine....Now i have a new pharmacist and he says yes generic brands can even vary from batch to batch8O
i'm on a drug plan and most drugs i get are generic.
Non generic drugs are produced better......


the tylenol deal got me going......

free market societies without laws and such become a "Buyer beware" society

 

[Niflmir]

Well, Andem, DocDred answered the generic vs. brandname question for me. Even if there wasn't the problem with lowered quality control there is a known placebo effect that distinguishes the product. This is why double blind studies are used: brand names act as placebos over equal quality generics.

So I will tackle the one objection I have left on the table: Toro's conflation of my argument with property rights. Although I use intellectual property laws to further the point that our laws nurture monopolies, I do not explicit argue for or against them. In the sense of Adam Smith and the invisible hand, a monopoly can never be a free market: the monopolist by definition cannot stop controlling the supply, the monopolist is the only supplier. The argument you pose is a validation of intellectual property laws, that I decline to affirm or denounce. It is true that in a realistic market property laws are vital, excluding of course a communism where the public owns everything anyways. The thesis of my argument is that a realistic market is not a free market. Note how your validation of property laws calls for strong government intervention in the marketplace to control suppliers who do not have intellectual property rights as opposed to relying on free market principals.

The argument (excluding subsidies) is simply this: 1) Monopolies can never be free markets. 2) Intellectual property rights ensure monopolies. 3) Intellectual property rights ensure that there are no free markets. What I am most definitely not talking about is the validity of intellectual property rights, you can agree with them or disagree with them, it will not alter my argument one iota. There are only two major points and the reality of the laws which result in my conclusion.


Damngrumpy: I assumed all horticulturalists in Canada were subsidized, but I was aware of my own ignorance. So I left out any mention of Canadian subsidies. It doesn't matter which government subsidizes which producer. So long as there is subsidy somewhere in the marketplace, there is control of the supply by someone.

 

[Toro]

So I will tackle the one objection I have left on the table: Toro's conflation of my argument with property rights. Although I use intellectual property laws to further the point that our laws nurture monopolies, I do not explicit argue for or against them. In the sense of Adam Smith and the invisible hand, a monopoly can never be a free market: the monopolist by definition cannot stop controlling the supply, the monopolist is the only supplier. The argument you pose is a validation of intellectual property laws, that I decline to affirm or denounce. It is true that in a realistic market property laws are vital, excluding of course a communism where the public owns everything anyways. The thesis of my argument is that a realistic market is not a free market. Note how your validation of property laws calls for strong government intervention in the marketplace to control suppliers who do not have intellectual property rights as opposed to relying on free market principals.

What you are arguing has no resemblance of "free market" as postulated by the proponents of free markets. You are, essentially, arguing for anarchy. Saying that government protection and adjudication of contract law is a contradiction to free markets is tantamount to arguing that any society that has a police force or judicial system can never be free.

Also, you are assuming (I assume) a priori that free markets lead to monopolies. There is no systematic evidence this occurs, other than anecdotes.

The argument (excluding subsidies) is simply this: 1) Monopolies can never be free markets. 2) Intellectual property rights ensure monopolies. 3) Intellectual property rights ensure that there are no free markets. What I am most definitely not talking about is the validity of intellectual property rights, you can agree with them or disagree with them, it will not alter my argument one iota. There are only two major points and the reality of the laws which result in my conclusion.

I disagree.

Take music, for instance. Nobody has a patent on "music." Instead, the creators of music claim intellectual property rights to what they have created. But nobody would argue that there is a "monopoly" on music. There may not be a more competitive market than music. Yet, we protect intellectual property rights for the creators of the music. The competition occurs as consumers choose which music they wish to listen.

In fact, there are very few monopolies. There are, what 100,000,000 patents in the US. (I'm guessing, I can't remember.) There aren't that many monopolies.

Even something that may seem like a monopoly is not. Take the OS you are using for your computer. It is probably Windows. Windows has ~90% of the market. But nothing is stopping you from buying a Mac, as I did since I got sick of Windows. And nothing stops you from learning Linux and building your own machine. I know people who have done that.

Or take pharmaceuticals. Doc mentioned blood-pressure drugs. It may seem obvious that pharmas are monopolies given the 25 year patent protection each product is given. However, most people don't have to take blood-pressure medication. They can lower blood pressure by eating better and exercising more. (I know because I'm one of those people who chooses to regulate my blood pressure in this manner rather than through drugs.) Many, but not all, drugs are similar in that there may be one or only a few choices if you choose to take drugs, but your options also include other alternatives.

Thus, there are few monopolies. Patent law and the protection of intellectual property does not, in general impede a free market.

Besides, defining a true "free market" is an esoteric philosophic discussion anyways. What matters is not an unattainable ideal but what is practical.

 

[Niflmir]

What you are arguing has no resemblance of "free market" as postulated by the proponents of free markets. You are, essentially, arguing for anarchy. Saying that government protection and adjudication of contract law is a contradiction to free markets is tantamount to arguing that any society that has a police force or judicial system can never be free.

Again, I am not arguing for or against anything. That is not what I wanted to discuss here at all. In the second sentence of the third paragraph of my opening statement I state what economists mean by a free market. My argument is simply that as defined by an economist, they do not exist. That is what I am saying: free markets do not exist.

Also, you are assuming (I assume) a priori that free markets lead to monopolies. There is no systematic evidence this occurs, other than anecdotes.

Actually the crux of my argument is that intellectual property laws lead to monopolies and that violates free market principles as defined by economists. There are no assumptions, I argue why I believe that intellectual property laws lead to monopolies and I argue further why monopolies are not free markets.

Take music, for instance. Nobody has a patent on "music." Instead, the creators of music claim intellectual property rights to what they have created. But nobody would argue that there is a "monopoly" on music. There may not be a more competitive market than music. Yet, we protect intellectual property rights for the creators of the music. The competition occurs as consumers choose which music they wish to listen.

Copyright law is a form of intellectual property law and music falls under that. Also, it is quite easy to see that music is monopolistic. Can I freely go out and do a cover of a Beatles song, make some CD's and then sell them? No, I would face huge lawsuits. There is only one supplier of The Beatles music, and they license it. In fact to me, music is the icon of a monopoly. When I feel like listening to a specific song there is absolutely no replacement: there is only one product for me. On free market principles, we would say that the person who could produce the product the cheapest or of the highest quality and distribute it the cheapest would outperform its competitors. However, in our marketplace, there is only one producer. You could argue that Simon and Garfunkel might be a good replacement for the Beatles, but they are two very different products even if they are related.

This is in fact the idea that my argument hinges on: a Beatles CD is a completely different product from a Simon and Garfunkel CD, they do not compete with each other.

In fact, there are very few monopolies. There are, what 100,000,000 patents in the US. (I'm guessing, I can't remember.) There aren't that many monopolies.

100 million is enormous, for comparison's sake, in the night sky, there are only a few thousand visible stars. In a supermarket there is another order of magnitude, its a few tens of thousands. With patents, we are talking a few orders of magnitude, which is clearly more than astronomical.

Even something that may seem like a monopoly is not. Take the OS you are using for your computer. It is probably Windows. Windows has ~90% of the market. But nothing is stopping you from buying a Mac, as I did since I got sick of Windows. And nothing stops you from learning Linux and building your own machine. I know people who have done that.

Or take pharmaceuticals. Doc mentioned blood-pressure drugs. It may seem obvious that pharmas are monopolies given the 25 year patent protection each product is given. However, most people don't have to take blood-pressure medication. They can lower blood pressure by eating better and exercising more. (I know because I'm one of those people who chooses to regulate my blood pressure in this manner rather than through drugs.) Many, but not all, drugs are similar in that there may be one or only a few choices if you choose to take drugs, but your options also include other alternatives.

Now you are certainly attacking one of my actual premises, which is what I was looking for, after all, if my thesis is BS, I would hope somebody would point it out. I definitely don't want to get into a product per product analysis, that would just be terrible with more than a million patents. The general economic idea is that for a given need, I go out and look for products to fulfill that need. Again, a free market is one where the supply has not been controlled except by demand. Every product I pick up off a shelf will be a) copyrighted, b)patented, and/or c) Trademarked.

Patents are obvious controls on the supply, before I can freely enter the market I must find a way to create a similar product and patent it, thus many companies which would become more efficient suppliers are barred from entry by lack of funds - not funds to produce, but funds to enter. Copyrights are similar, the product must be suitably original or I must pay royalties, in either case there is an artificial, governmental barrier to enter the marketplace. Trademarks are the same, many people don't even know that Tylenol is acetaminophen because when a new drug comes out it is marketed under its trade name and its arcane scientific name is ignored. Then when the patent expires, people don't trust the generic product because of its arcane name. Studies even show that the generic brand doesn't do as well (outside double blind studies). If I want Tylenol, there is only one supplier but if I want acetaminophen I have choices, but I have yet to hear someone ask me to pick them up some acetaminophen.

Thus, there are few monopolies. Patent law and the protection of intellectual property does not, in general impede a free market.

Besides, defining a true "free market" is an esoteric philosophic discussion anyways. What matters is not an unattainable ideal but what is practical.

Of course if "free market" is seen as having no definition or as being an unattainable ideal, than my goal has been met: there aren't any. I am not attacking our market system, I think its great. I am saying that our market system is not an example of a free market.

 

[Toro]

Of course if "free market" is seen as having no definition or as being an unattainable ideal, than my goal has been met: there aren't any. I am not attacking our market system, I think its great. I am saying that our market system is not an example of a free market.

Again, I'd argue that your argument is anarchy.

Put it another way N, let's say you own a house on a piece of land. Then, one day, you wake up to find a wrecking ball has smashed through your living room. So you go outside and see a work crew and some guy looking at a set of blueprints. You ask the guy "What the heck is going on?" And the guy replies, "I've decided to build a better house here, one that will make the neighborhood look better and more valuable. I've also decided to build a Kentucky Fried Chicken on your property so we can boost economic growth in the area. You'll have to leave, I'm sorry."

This is the argument you are making. Not being able to do whatever you wish with someone else's physical property is no different than not being able to do whatever you wish with someone else's intellectual property. There is no difference between intellectual and physical property, just the embodiment of what is tangible and what is intangible.

If you own the land and your house, you have a monopoly on that land and house. It is yours. People cannot come to your land and do whatever they please. They cannot steal your land, just like you cannot steal intellectual property. That is not the absence of a free market. That is the enforcement of property contract law.

What you are arguing is not the absence of a true hypothetical free market. What you are arguing is the collapse of the rule of law and anarchy.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Not to hikack...But I never had the original blood pressure pill...
all i ever recieved were generics....I noticed after taken a new batch fetched from pharmacy i did not feel the same and when I checked the label it said Novo atenol instead of Apo atenol....
In my case the placebo effect was not there for I wasn't reading labels until i noticed a change.....

 

[BitWhys]

With over half of business tied up in oligarchies referring to our current system as a free market really should come with a few provisos.

 

[Toro]

I think you mean "oligopoly" BW, not "oligarchy."

Half of business certainly ain't in an oligopolistic setting.

 

[BitWhys]

I think you mean "oligopoly" BW, not "oligarchy."

Half of business certainly ain't in an oligopolistic setting.

I meant what I said.

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/concentration.html

you do the math.

 

[Toro]

You meant to say "oligarchy?"

An oligarchy is the rule by a few. What's that got to do with "free market," unless you're going to give some jive neo-proto-Marxlike-Chomskyish-militaryindustrialcomplex-NaomiWolforCampbellIcanneverrememberwhich over-arching political philosophy about how corporations and the media and the Joos run the world.

And you do the math! You made the claim. I'm not going to spend this holiday afternoon sifting through a mountain of statistics.

 

[BitWhys]

Year...Top 8 Companies per NAICS Aggregate Percent of Overall Market
1935...38.08289309
1947...47.40446447
1954...45.68406139
1958...50.33490963
1963...49.24505544
1966...49.42033368
1967...53.88233271
1970...50.63847843
1972...54.03763917
1977...54.75954058
1982...51.93673287
1987...51.67275586
1992...51.28330504


he who pays the piper...

 

[Toro]

What are those percentages of?

There are a few industries that are oligopolistic, but are not widespread in the US economy, or at least in the manner in which I have understood oligopolies.

Here

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=oligopoly

here

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=four-firm+concentration+ratio

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

 

[BitWhys]

that's an aggregate of the shipping value of goods from all Top 8 firms within a NAICS designation.

a few?

try 20% (CR4>50%) and think supply chain.

Description...% 1992
Meat Packing Plants...50
Canned Specialties...69
Flour and Other Grain Mill Products...56
Cereal Breakfast Foods...85
Rice Milling...50
Wet Corn Milling...73
Dog and Cat Food...58
Cookies and Crackers...56
Cane Sugar, Except Refining...52
Cane Sugar Refining...85
Beet Sugar...71
Chocolate and Cocoa Products...75
Cottonseed Oil Mills...62
Soybean Oil Mills...71
Vegetable Oil Mills, Except Corn, Cottonseed, and Soybeans...89
Malt Beverages...90
Malt...65
Wines, Brandy, and Brandy Spirits...54
Distilled and Blended Liquors...62
Flavoring Extracts and Flavoring Syrups NEC...69
Roasted Coffee...66
Potato Chips, Corn Chips, and Similar Snacks...70
Macaroni, Spaghetti, Vermicelli, and Noodles...78
Cigarettes...93
Cigars...74
Chewing and Smoking Tobacco and Snuff...87
Tobacco Stemming and Redrying...72
Women's Full-Length and Knee-Length Hosiery, Except Socks...55
Knit Underwear and Nightwear Mills...64
Knitting Mills, NEC...58
Yarn Texturizing, Throwing, Twisting, and Winding Mills...68
Thread Mills...75
Tire Cord and Fabrics...75
Men's and Boys' Underwear and Nightwear...52
Men's and Boys' Trousers and Slacks...70
Brassieres, Girdles, and Allied Garments...56
Dress and Work Gloves, Except Knit and All-Leather...64
Waterproof Outerwear...64
Leather and Sheep-Lined Clothing...51
Reconstituted Wood Products...50
Wood Television, Radio, Phonograph and Sewing Machine Cabinets...55
Office Furniture, Except Wood...56
Fiber Cans, Tubes, Drums, and Similar Products...63
Sanitary Food Containers, Except Folding...59
Uncoated Paper and Multiwall Bags...50
Sanitary Paper Products...68
Stationery, Tablets, and Related Products...50
Commercial Printing, Gravure...70
Greeting Cards...84
Blankbooks, Loose-leaf Binders and Devices...55
Alkalies and Chlorine...75
Industrial Gases...78
Inorganic Pigments...69
Cellulosic Manmade Fibers...98
Manmade Organic Fibers, Except Cellulosic...74
Medicinal Chemicals and Botanical Products...76
Biological Products, Except Diagnostic Substances...53
Soaps and Other Detergents, Except Speciality Cleaners...63
Speciality Cleaning, Polishing, and Sanitary Preparations...52
Gum and Wood Chemicals...62
Phosphatic Fertilizers...62
Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals, NEC...53
Explosives...57
Carbon Black...77
Tires and Inner Tubes...70
Rubber and Plastics Hose and Belting...53
House Slippers...68
Women's Footwear, Except Athletic...61
Leather Gloves and Mittens...50
Women's Handbags and Purses...55
Flat Glass...81
Glass Containers...84
Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile...59
Vitreous China Plumbing Fixtures and China and Earthenware Fittings and Bathroom Accessories...71
Vitreous China Table and Kitchen Articles...81
Fine Earthenware (Whiteware) Table and Kitchen Articles...85
Gypsum Products...75
Abrasive Products...63
Asbestos Products...88
Mineral Wool...64
Electrometallurgical Products, Except Steel...56
Malleable Iron Foundries...80
Steel Investment Foundries...50
Primary Smelting and Refining of Copper...98
Primary Production of Aluminum...59
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil...68
Aluminum Rolling and Drawing, NEC...86
Nonferrous Foundries, Except Aluminum and Copper...70
Metal Cans...56
Cutlery...56
Enameled Iron and Metal Sanitary Ware...60
Nonferrous Forgings...59
Automotive Stamping...51
Crowns and Closures...57
Small Arms Ammunition...84
Ammunition, Except for Small Arms...57
Ordnance and Accessories, NEC...83
Steam, Gas, and Hydraulic Turbines, and Turbine Generator Set Units...79
Internal Combustion Engines, NEC...56
Lawn and Garden Tractors and Home Lawn and Garden Equipment...62
Elevators and Moving Stairways...57
Power-Driven Handtools...50
Ball and Roller Bearings...51
Computer Storage Devices...55
Calculating and Accounting Machines, Except Electronic Computers...62
Automatic Vending Machines...52
Measuring and Dispensing Pumps...51
Carburetors, Pistons, Piston Rings, and Valves...50
Scales and Balances, Except Laboratory...51
Power, Distribution, and Specialty Transformers...51
Household Cooking Equipment...60
Household Refrigerators and Home and Farm Freezers...82
Household Laundry Equipment...94
Household Vacuum Cleaners...59
Household Appliances, NEC...70
Electric Lamp Bulbs and Tubes...86
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixtures...50
Vehicular Lighting Equipment...65
Telephone and Telegraph Apparatus...51
Electron Tubes...58
Electronic Capacitors...55
Storage Batteries...60
Primary Batteries, Dry and Wet...87
Electrical Equipment for Internal Combustion Engines...57
Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies...84
Motor Homes...53
Aircraft...79
Aircraft Engines and Engine Parts...77
Ship Building and Repairing...53
Railroad Equipment...53
Motorcycles, Bicycles, and Parts...65
Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles...71
Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Units and Propulsion Unit Parts...71
Guided Missile Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment, NEC...75
Tanks and Tank Components...88
Automatic Controls for Regulating Residential and Commercial Environments and Appliances...54
Totalizing Fluid Meters and Counting Devices...56
X-Ray Apparatus and Tubes and Related Irradiation Apparatus...70
Photographic Equipment and Supplies...78
Silverware, Plated Ware, and Stainless Steel Ware...66
Lead Pencils, Crayons, and Artist's Materials...62
Burial Caskets...64
Linoleum, Asphalted-Felt-Base, and Other Hard Surface Floor Coverings, NEC...83