Big Business & Big Government vs. the People

One would expect a sensible man to know that after discussing it with its proponents for -what, 10 years, at least?-

 

all have always agreed that a free market has rules, laws, and regulations designed to enable free people to freely make economic transactions.

a libcommie market has rules, laws, and regulations designed to enable not free people to make economic transactions that suit the libcommies not the people.

 

You've said nothing here. Fancy putting that right? Perhaps you'd like to claim some form of voluntary rule making that delivers the first best? Some corruption of the Coase Theorem instead? Just something!

 

totally wrong of course. Conservatives like lots of control to prevent any deviation from capitalism while libcommies like lots of control to install communism and perhaps kill 120 million human souls if necessary to secure compliance.

 

It was a statement of fact. Try real world economics for a change, rather than childish made-up terms

 

If I tried real world economicsCould I be a real world libcommie like you?Fact is there are regulations to enable capitalism and other regulations to enable communism.You obviously favorite those that enable communism. Why not tell us your big objection to the free-market keeping in mind that Florida has a largely free market in Cuba has a largely communist market

 

Isn't going to happen is it?

 

To you Milton Friedman perhaps the greatest human being in history is not real world economics but that which lead you to be a communist is. How much sense do you think that makes?

 

Friedman's contributions have very much been destructive. Can't you at least refer to someone important like Hayek?

 

You call preventing the recent housing crisis from becoming a worldwide depression distructive ??

 

Are you taking the mike? The housing crisis became a global phenomenon because of neo-liberalism, itself enabled by the likes of Friedman.

 

Friedman was for capitalism not 132 govt programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford. Do you understand 1+1=2?

 

Friedman, and his ilk, ironically have done their best to bring down capitalism. They ensured insecurity after all. Its been ignored mind you as that was also associated with the rich getting richer at every other bugger's expense.

 

I'm not sure that I do in any way limit this to "government".

It can be the top merchant, the local cartel. The local Baron.
I don't think it has to be government persee that regulates the market, I just think that regulation will occur.
Even in Somalia, warlords will assert control.

Free market, does mean a market with out rules.
It's a philosophical construct, like Schroedingers Cat or a tree that falls in the woods.
It doesn't actually exist and never has, it's more of a goal than an achievable realisable outcome.

The reason we want a free market is because under this simplification of economics, we would be able to better quantify the value of things to each other.
The reason we don't want a free market is that little fish don't want to get eaten by big fish.

 

I think that people have many different views of what the term free market means. I'm thinking along the lines of: the market that would exist in a society that effectively and justly settled conflicts over liberty and property.

It's not perfect, but it think it excludes a society like Somalia.

 

Can my freedom to make purchases hinder others?

If no, I'd be happy to provide more examples.

If yes, then you understand what an when I say that (some) people advocate 100% "free markets" really want markets without rules.

 

It doesn't actually exclude any society. 'Justly' is a value statement after all. A right wing extremist will have a different view over what that means compared to a left wing libertarian.

That's the problem with right wing economics. It uses 'free market fundamentalism' to coerce a particular ideology, but has the gall to pretend otherwise.

 

I'd be happy to hear your examples.

 

Like I said, not perfect. Maybe adjusted to: the market that would exist in a society that effectively and justly settled interpersonal conflicts over liberty and property.

 

Well, as I pointed out, if a company was large enough and had the capital, it could create shortages in resource markets in order to drive up prices for its competition while keeping prices lower to take over market share.

Suppose water was supplied by the "free market". Then suppose that sources in a particular area are few that the market is widdled down to a single supplier. Imagine a single company in control of a resource like water. What could go wrong?

One of the problems with "free markets" can be a lack of access to information about a product. If there aren't regulations ensuring the quality of a product or information about what it's made from, where it comes from or its affects, people can be sold goods and serves expecting one product but getting much less. Imagine buying a home that has serious issues. Or a food product with ingredients that cause ilness over a very long (like pesticides). Companies in a "free market" might be able to say they didn't know the pesticides caused illness because their suppliers weren't required to test them.

Now you might say, but E4E1, if products make people sick then people will buy less of that product which will affect the companies business. But would that be the case? Usually, inferior products cost less and the poor have sufficient motivation to buy less expensive foods to save money. When combined with "free market" marketing campaigns that talk about using only the highest quality (while not providing the highest quality (I am reminded of BP's recent commercial campaign to insist that "safety is job one", which is sort of ironic in light of the Deep Horizons drilling disaster).

Markets will always race to the bottom without effective constraints to do so. The threat of a loss of a company is insufficient to provide the incentives not to cheat when cheating provides (potentially) much higher margins. Investors can start companies and get out before problems are discovered (keeping the money), and the investor can always be shielded from culpability because they often have plausible deniability.

Behind the scenes, there are other issues that consumers rarely see. Without effective government constraints on transportation shipping companies might take risks to move products more cheaply. One way that could be accomplished would be to reward operators (trucking, rail, planes) who can stay awake the longest who, in general, take more risk. In some cases, the company can higher owner-operators. When problems result, the company whose products are being shipped claims they didn't know what the owner-operators were doing.

The same can be said of small suppliers who race to the bottom to provide low-cost components to larger companies. The smaller companies take higher risks and the large company simply doesn't ask questions about the practices of the companies in question.

Just a few off the cuff ideas.

 

Translation: I lost debate so I’ll change subject to gibberish

 

If so why so afraid to give best example? What do you learn from your fear ?

 

One of the problems with "free markets" can be a lack of access to information about a product. If there aren't.

Pure insanity. In a free market you are free to sell valuable information about a product!! Hard to believe you didn’t know that!

 

??? Free market is an ideology and does not pretend anything, Do you understand ??

 

The only thing that's hard to believe is how you missed what I was saying.