Big Business & Big Government vs. the People

I see my mistake, I chose the wrong word.

 

No apology for your snottiness?

 

Can you explain what you mean by this?

 

Try http://fpif.org/kicking_away_the_ladder_the_real_history_of_free_trade/ for an intro

 

Can YOU explain what you mean when you say that markets have ultimately been created by interventionism?

 

I already have! Interventionism created markets and interventionism is needed to maintain them. It just happens its also efficient, given the second best.

 

Can you explain how interventionism creates markets, and maybe how markets could not exist without interventionism?

 

Yep, its a simple reference to the infant industry hypothesis (and how interventionism is needed to eliminate the negative impact of high fixed costs). Have you ever wondered why you never actually have any economic comment in your own posts? Can we blame mises.org?

 

Okay, so go ahead and explain how interventionism creates markets, and maybe how markets could not exists without interventionism. I'm getting curious.

 

Already done so! Look up the infant industry hypothesis if you need more detail. Given you have zero economic comment to give, I'm not in the mood to educate you from first principles

 

1) I feel quite enriched rather than damaged that Jeff Bezos has so much inequality (1 cent per package goes to him) since I hate going stores. What could be more inefficient!!
2)people at bottom are poor and inequal because libcommieism encouraged them to get pregnant while teens and to avoid a free education.

imagine that, libcommies screw up the world and then tell us communism is the way to fix it. Totally 100 screwy. Who would believe it?

 

yes don't know how our biggest companies: Apple Amazon Intel Google Oracle Bloomberg Microfast etc etc all got started as infant industries without communist subsides. Great, now you are up to 10,005 absurd libcommie interventions in the free market. Ever heard of North/South Korea, Cuba /Florida?

 

Without government interventionism, none of the current firms would exist. Of course subsidisation continues (see, for example, the military industrial complex)

 

To hinder someone in the market would be unfair. The way you appear to be describing a "free" market appears to agree with my definition of a "fair" market. Hinderance would be unfair. The problem we're are sure to run into is, what constitutes a free and fair market? WHat is a hindrance and how might we, as a society, define what constitutes a hinderance?

Do regulations constitute a hindrance? I guess that depends on who you ask and what the regulation is.

When I make the claim that the term "free market" is really just a euphemism for "lawless market", I say that because there are a lot of people who believe that only the government can be a hindrance, everything else is just part of the market.

What say you?

 

I say a free market is one in which people are free to buy and sell as they please.

To the extent that the government prevents them from doing so, then it is less free.

 

For a free market there has to be absence of intervention. Such markets do not exist. The only question is the extent of central control.

 

Of course it does. You just limit your thinking to the notion that only government can provide justice and enforce contracts.

Businesses benefit from socializing the cost of enforcement and protection. So, why wouldn't they go for that when a politician offers it and the sheep are willing to be sheared for the price of it? Not only that, but a larger government means more regulatory capture and rent-seeking.

"Free market" doesn't mean one without rules. You are conflating it with a black market, which even then has rules, it just doesn't have good mechanisms for enforcement that don't involve violence.

 

Notice you didn't say 'property rights protection'. Rules are of course a reference to regulation (and the rejection of free market economics)

 

That depends on who is making the rules, how they are imposed, and how they are enforced. I did not think you so unimaginative as to believe that only your political rulers are capable of crafting rules. Perhaps I thought wrong.

 

Depends on what he means by "policeman", right?

 

After all this time...

Here, say it with me:

The mark of an educated man is the ability to entertain an idea with which he disagrees.

 

"Capitalism stands it's trial before judges who have the sentence of death in their pockets. They're going to pass it, whatever defense they may hear. The only success "victorious" defense can possibly produce is a change in the indictment."

forgot who said that

 

A free market simply requires that people are free to by and sell without hinderance.

 

Which then depends on what he thinks needs to be policed.

 

or which case he thinks he needs to make at the moment